Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 29, 2023

Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc.

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:23-cv-05138
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Vinci Brands v. Coach Services, Judge Schofield denied without prejudice an application to seal a declaration and required refiling.

Who this affects

Vinci Brands LLC and the parties and counsel seeking access to ECF No. 42.

What happened

In Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc., Vinci Brands asked the court to formally seal a declaration filed as ECF No. 42. The declaration was from Vinci Brands member Steve Latkovic.

Vinci Brands said the defendants’ lawyers had identified confidential information in the declaration and requested that it be filed under seal. The filing had already been placed under an emergency seal, and Vinci Brands said it would file a redacted version.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the application without prejudice to renewal. She directed Vinci Brands to refile the unredacted version under seal and a redacted version by June 30, 2023, explain the basis for sealing, and left ECF No. 42 under seal in the meantime.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Vinci Brands LLC v. Coach Services, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-05138
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
June 29, 2023

Background

Vinci Brands LLC asked the court to formally seal ECF No. 42, a declaration from Vinci Brands member Steve Latkovic. Counsel for Coach Services, Inc., Kate Spade LLC, and Tapestry, Inc. had advised Vinci Brands that the declaration contained confidential information and requested that it be filed under seal. The filing had been placed under an emergency seal, and Vinci Brands stated that it would file a redacted version.

Ruling

The court denied the application without prejudice to renewal. The court directed Vinci Brands to refile, by June 30, 2023, both an unredacted version under seal and a redacted version for the court’s review. Vinci Brands also had to include the basis for its request to seal. ECF No. 42 was to remain under seal in the meantime. The order cited Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga concerning sealing standards.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.