Ogilvie Brands, Inc. v. Love Health, Inc.
- Rearden
- 1:23-cv-04932
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ogilvie Brands v. Love Health, Judge Rearden adopted the briefing schedule and allowed limited redactions while requiring a proposed protective order.
Ogilvie Brands, Inc. doing business as Love Wellness, Love Health, Inc., and public access to the identified court filings.
What happened
Ogilvie Brands, Inc., doing business as Love Wellness, asked to file a redacted preliminary-injunction motion and supporting declaration. The parties agreed on deadlines for Love Health, Inc.’s response and Ogilvie Brands’ reply.
The court adopted the proposed briefing schedule. It also granted Ogilvie Brands permission to redact two portions concerning revenue and marketing expenses, subject to entry of a stipulated protective order.
Judge Rearden ordered the parties to submit a proposed protective order by July 19, 2023, and directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 16. The order did not decide the preliminary-injunction motion itself.
The detailed version
- Ogilvie Brands, Inc. v. Love Health, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04932
- Rearden
- July 12, 2023
Background
Ogilvie Brands, Inc., doing business as Love Wellness, filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a declaration from Lauren Bosworth. It asked to file redacted versions because two small portions contained sensitive business information about revenue and marketing expenditures. Love Health, Inc. consented to the requested redactions.
The parties proposed a briefing schedule under which Love Health’s response would be due 14 days after the motion’s filing date, identified as July 20, 2023, and Ogilvie Brands’ reply would be due seven days after the response. The letter also noted that a change to the reply deadline might be needed because lead counsel had a prescheduled surgery.
Court’s Actions
The court adopted the parties’ proposed briefing schedule. It granted Ogilvie Brands leave to make the requested redactions, subject to entry of a stipulated protective order. The court required the parties to submit a proposed protective order by July 19, 2023, in compliance with Rule 10 of the court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases.
The court also directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 16. The order addressed filing redactions, the protective order, and scheduling; it did not rule on the merits of the preliminary-injunction motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.