Allustra Technologies LLC v. Clarins U.S.A., Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-09948
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Allustra Technologies v. Clarins, Judge Swain granted requests to redact filings and keep Allustra’s LLC agreement sealed.
Allustra’s confidential business information remains nonpublic in the specified filings; Clarins may rely on the redacted filings, while the public cannot access the sealed agreement under the current access restrictions.
What happened
Allustra Technologies LLC v. Clarins U.S.A., Inc. involved a request about documents Clarins filed in support of a motion seeking discovery from Allustra’s parent company, Mary Kay Inc. Allustra asked to redact parts of a letter motion and related correspondence and to keep its limited liability company agreement sealed.
Clarins did not oppose keeping the information under seal. Allustra argued that the agreement was not needed to resolve the discovery dispute and contained confidential business information whose disclosure could harm the company competitively.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted the request to file redacted versions of the letter motion and correspondence. She also granted the request to keep the limited liability company agreement sealed in its entirety under the existing access restrictions.
The detailed version
- Allustra Technologies LLC v. Clarins U.S.A., Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-09948
- Laura Swain
- July 24, 2023
Background
Clarins filed several Allustra documents under seal in support of a letter motion seeking to compel Allustra to search for and produce responsive documents held by, or within the possession, custody, or control of, Allustra’s parent company, Mary Kay Inc. Allustra asked the court to allow redactions in the letter motion and in correspondence between counsel, and to keep Allustra’s Delaware limited liability company agreement sealed in its entirety. Clarins did not oppose maintaining the information under seal.
Arguments About Public Access
Allustra argued that its limited liability company agreement was not a judicial document because it was not necessary to resolve whether Allustra should be required to search Mary Kay’s documents. Allustra also argued that the agreement’s information was cumulative of disclosures and interrogatory responses already provided in the case. Alternatively, Allustra argued that its privacy interest in confidential, proprietary business information outweighed any presumption that the document should be publicly accessible.
Ruling
The court granted the request to file redacted versions of the letter motion at docket entry 66 and the correspondence between the parties at docket entry 66-2. The court also granted the request to maintain docket entry 66-4—the Allustra limited liability company agreement—under seal in its entirety under the current access level. The order resolved docket entry 68.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.