Nike, Inc. v. Stockx LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-00983
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Nike v. StockX, Judge Caproni granted the parties’ application to seal limited confidential financial and business information in StockX’s response.
Nike, Inc., StockX LLC, and nonparty Roy Kim, whose personal spending information was included in the proposed redactions.
What happened
Nike, Inc. and StockX LLC jointly asked the court to seal or redact parts of StockX’s response to Nike’s objection concerning a magistrate judge’s order denying Nike’s motion to compel.
The request covered a third party’s personal spending information and Nike’s confidential business information about methods for identifying counterfeit and unauthorized goods. Nike consented to the application but reserved its objections to StockX’s use of new factual evidence.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted the application. The order addressed sealing and redactions only; the text does not state a ruling on the parties’ underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Nike, Inc. v. Stockx LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00983
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 13, 2023
Background
The parties submitted a joint letter asking the court to approve sealed treatment for StockX’s response to Nike’s objection to Magistrate Judge Netburn’s March 23, 2023 order denying Nike’s motion to compel. The request was made under the parties’ stipulated protective order and the court’s rules concerning sealed filings.
Requested Redactions and Sealing
StockX proposed redacting one line from a deposition transcript containing the amount that a nonparty, Roy Kim, had previously spent on the StockX platform. StockX argued that this was sensitive personal financial information and asked that Mr. Kim receive notice and an opportunity to be heard if the court considered ordering public disclosure.
StockX also proposed redacting portions of its response and sealing Exhibits C and E. According to the joint letter, those materials contained Nike information designated as highly confidential, including Nike’s methods for identifying counterfeit, gray-market, and other unauthorized goods. StockX argued that disclosure could help counterfeiters and other bad actors defeat Nike’s anticounterfeiting measures.
Nike consented to StockX’s motion to seal but reserved its rights to object to StockX’s submission of new factual evidence that had not been presented to Magistrate Judge Netburn on the motion to compel.
Ruling
Judge Valerie E. Caproni entered the order “Application GRANTED” and ordered, “SO ORDERED.” The opinion therefore granted the parties’ application for the proposed sealed treatment and redactions. The text does not describe any ruling on the motion to compel, the underlying claims, or the parties’ broader dispute.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.