Liu v. The Nielsen Company LLC
- Rearden
- 1:22-cv-09084
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Liu v. The Nielsen Company, Judge Rearden addressed Liu’s request to unseal a filing through an earlier sealing order and terminated the motion docket entry.
Frank Liu, the defendants The Nielsen Company (US) LLC and TNC US HOLDINGS, and potentially members of the public seeking access to the referenced court filings.
What happened
In Liu v. The Nielsen Company (US) LLC, Frank Liu, representing himself, asked the court to make public the defendants’ private letter motion seeking to seal two docket entries and related filings. He argued that sealing requests should generally be publicly filed and that private submission limited public access.
The provided opinion text does not include the court’s reasoning or state whether Liu’s request was granted or denied. It says only that the application was addressed by the court’s order on the defendants’ motion to seal, identified as ECF No. 39.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden ordered the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 31. The text does not specify the separate disposition of Liu’s motion to unseal.
The detailed version
- Liu v. The Nielsen Company LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09084
- Rearden
- June 1, 2023
Background
Frank Liu, a self-represented plaintiff, filed a motion asking the court to unseal the defendants’ letter motion to seal docket entries 6 and 6.1, along with related filings that the court considered appropriate for public release. Liu argued that courts are public institutions, that sealing motions should generally be filed on the public docket, and that private submission prevented public notice and possible participation by members of the public.
The provided text includes Liu’s motion and a short court order. Liu said that defense counsel had emailed the sealing request to the judge’s chambers and that Liu had been directed to email responses rather than file them publicly. The opinion text does not provide the defendants’ substantive response or describe the contents of docket entries 6 and 6.1.
Court’s Action
The court stated: “Plaintiff’s application has been addressed by the Court’s Order on Defendants’ motion to seal, ECF No. 39.” The court then directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 31 and marked the order “SO ORDERED.” The text provided does not say whether Liu’s motion was granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part, and it does not explain the reasoning in the referenced order on the defendants’ motion to seal.
Effect
The order concerns court-record access and the administrative status of Liu’s motion. Because this is a sealing-related procedural matter, it does not decide the underlying claims described in the case caption.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.