Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 26, 2023

North Star IP Holdings, LLC v. Icon Trade Services LLC

Judge
Clarke
Docket
1:22-cv-07324
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In North Star v. Icon, Judge Clarke temporarily granted motions to seal materials pending review of the underlying summary-judgment motion.

Who this affects

North Star, Icon, the RM Defendants, and nonparty individuals and companies whose financial, ownership, contractual, or other confidential information appeared in the materials.

What happened

In North Star IP Holdings, LLC v. Icon Trade Services LLC, the parties asked the court to keep certain portions of summary-judgment papers and supporting exhibits from public view.

The requested redactions covered business and financial information, including royalty terms, debts, purchase prices, ownership details, and confidential contract terms. The requests also included information about people and companies that were not parties to the case. Icon joined some requests and did not oppose others.

Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke temporarily granted the letter-motions to seal. She said the court would decide whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when it ruled on the underlying motion, and directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 112.

The detailed version

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

Case
North Star IP Holdings, LLC v. Icon Trade Services LLC · No. 1:22-cv-07324
Judge
Clarke
Date
July 26, 2023

Background

North Star IP Holdings, LLC and third-party defendants Jalapeno Pizza Holdings LLC and Jalapeno Pizza LLC, referred to in the letter as the RM Defendants, requested that portions of their summary-judgment motion and their opposition to Icon Trade Services LLC’s summary-judgment motion be filed under seal. Redacted versions had been filed publicly, while the unredacted versions were to be filed under seal. Icon did not oppose the motion and joined some portions of the request.

Information at Issue

The requested redactions covered excerpts from deposition testimony and documents. The information included royalty percentages and unpaid royalties under sublicense agreements; the RM Defendants’ debt to Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc.; purchase prices and other financial details concerning a secured-party bill of sale; ownership information for Rebecca Minkoff Holding Company, LLC; identities of third parties who discussed purchasing assets; comparisons of purchase-price offers; and ownership interests and confidential financial contract terms involving North Star and third parties. The parties argued that the information was confidential, had limited relevance to the court’s decision on the summary-judgment motion, and in some instances implicated the privacy interests of nonparties.

Ruling

The court granted temporarily the parties’ letter-motions to seal, identified as ECF Nos. 112 and 120. The court stated that it would assess whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 112. The opinion does not make a final determination about whether the materials would remain sealed or redacted.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.