BakeMark USA LLC v. Negron
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-02360
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In BakeMark USA LLC v. Negron, Judge Moses granted BakeMark’s motion to keep customer information under seal.
BakeMark USA LLC and anyone seeking public access to Exhibit 3, which remains under seal because it contains sensitive customer information.
What happened
In BakeMark USA LLC v. Negron, BakeMark asked the court to keep Exhibit 3 to the parties’ joint letter under seal. The exhibit included customer names, invoices with sensitive customer information, and screenshots of a system storing that information.
BakeMark argued that sealing was needed to protect sensitive commercial information. The court reviewed the request under the standards governing access to court records and found that the request was narrowly tailored to protect that interest.
Judge Barbara Moses granted the motion and ordered that the document filed at Dkt. 46 remain under seal. The clerk was directed to close the motion, without changing the documents’ viewing levels on the electronic docket.
The detailed version
- BakeMark USA LLC v. Negron · No. 1:23-cv-02360
- Analisa Torres
- May 15, 2023
Background
BakeMark USA LLC asked the court to keep Exhibit 3 to the parties’ May 9, 2023 joint letter under seal. The exhibit was separately filed under seal at Dkt. 46. BakeMark said the exhibit contained its customers’ names, invoices identifying sensitive customer information, and screenshots of the system where its confidential customer information was stored.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the sealing request under the standards set out in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. It noted that courts in the Southern District of New York routinely grant sealing requests involving sensitive commercial information. The court found that BakeMark’s request was sufficiently narrowly tailored to protect that interest.
Ruling
The court granted BakeMark’s motion. Dkt. 46 was to remain under seal. The clerk was directed to close the motion at Dkt. 44, and the court said the clerk did not need to change the viewing levels of documents on the electronic docket. The order addressed access to a filed document; it did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.