de Lacour v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.
- Kimba Wood
- 1:16-cv-08364
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In de Lacour v. Colgate-Palmolive, Judge Wood granted defendants’ request to seal parts of their legal memorandum.
The order affected Colgate-Palmolive Co. and Tom’s of Maine Inc.’s request to keep portions of their legal memorandum sealed, and the plaintiffs who did not object.
What happened
In de Lacour v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., defendants Colgate-Palmolive Co. and Tom’s of Maine Inc. asked to seal parts of a legal memorandum. The plaintiffs did not object.
The court reviewed the proposed redactions and found that they were narrowly tailored to protect proprietary business information. The court also found the information similar to information it had previously approved for sealing.
Judge Kimba M. Wood granted the request because the information’s sensitivity outweighed the public’s general right to access court records. The court said it could reconsider the sealing decisions later and directed the Clerk to close the motion.
The detailed version
- de Lacour v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. · No. 1:16-cv-08364
- Kimba Wood
- Aug. 7, 2023
Background
Defendants Colgate-Palmolive Co. and Tom’s of Maine Inc. asked the court to seal portions of their memorandum of law filed at ECF No. 301. Plaintiffs Anne de Lacour, Andrea Wright, and Loree Moran did not object to the request.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed the proposed redactions at ECF No. 302. It found that the redactions were narrowly tailored to protect proprietary business information and that the information was similar in nature to information the court had previously determined warranted sealing. Applying the public-access standard discussed in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, the court concluded that the sensitivity of the information outweighed the presumption that court records should be accessible.
Ruling
Judge Kimba M. Wood granted defendants’ request to seal portions of their memorandum of law. The court stated that it could reconsider its sealing decisions at any time, after notifying the parties, as to any sealed or redacted portions of defendants’ materials. The Clerk was directed to close the pending motion at ECF No. 301.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.