Executive Park Partners LLC v. Benicci Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:22-cv-02560
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Executive Park Partners v. Benicci, Judge Halpern denied Plaintiff’s request to seal portions of its filings and ordered them unsealed.
Executive Park Partners LLC’s request to keep portions of Documents 39 and 40 sealed was denied; Benicci Inc. and the public were affected by the order requiring those documents to be unsealed.
What happened
Executive Park Partners LLC asked to redact and seal parts of its memorandum opposing Benicci Inc.’s motion to dismiss and an accompanying declaration. It said the material described confidential product-acquisition, marketing, and sourcing strategies that could harm its competitive position if disclosed.
Benicci Inc. did not consent to the proposed redactions. The request concerned portions of Documents 39 and 40, and the opinion does not decide the underlying motion to dismiss.
Judge Philip M. Halpern denied Executive Park Partners LLC’s request to seal the materials. He directed the Clerk of Court to unseal Documents 39 and 40 and terminate the motion sequence at Document 37.
The detailed version
- Executive Park Partners LLC v. Benicci Inc. · No. 7:22-cv-02560
- Philip Halpern
- May 16, 2023
Background
Executive Park Partners LLC submitted a letter motion asking to redact and seal portions of its opposition memorandum to Benicci Inc.’s motion to dismiss and the accompanying declaration of Mendel Mendelovits. The plaintiff stated that the information concerned its product-acquisition, marketing, and sourcing strategies. It argued that the information was confidential, had competitive significance in online product sales by third-party sellers, and could help competitors and harm the plaintiff’s competitive standing if made public. The plaintiff also stated that the proposed redactions were limited and narrowly tailored. Benicci Inc. did not consent to the redactions.
Ruling
Judge Philip M. Halpern denied the plaintiff’s request to seal portions of its memorandum and declaration. The Clerk of Court was directed to unseal Documents 39 and 40 and terminate the motion sequence pending at Document 37. The provided order addresses access to those filings; it does not decide Benicci Inc.’s underlying motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.