The Avon Company v. Fareva Morton Grove, Inc.
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:22-cv-04724
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In The Avon Company v. Fareva Morton Grove, Judge Hellerstein signed an order concerning sealed litigation materials containing supplier and confidential business information.
The Avon Company, Fareva Morton Grove, Inc., Fareva S.A., and nonparty suppliers whose information appears in the identified materials.
What happened
The Avon Company v. Fareva Morton Grove, Inc. concerns Fareva’s request to keep certain materials sealed while opposing Avon’s motion for partial summary judgment or, alternatively, to compel responses to interrogatories.
Fareva identified documents containing information about its suppliers, including emails, a presentation, and deposition excerpts. Fareva also sought to keep documents that Avon had marked “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” along with redacted portions of Fareva’s opposition papers and factual statements that quoted or described those materials, under seal.
The filing ends with “SO ORDERED” and Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein’s signature. The text does not separately state whether the motion was granted or denied, but it concerns sealing litigation materials rather than the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- The Avon Company v. Fareva Morton Grove, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04724
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Aug. 22, 2023
Background
Fareva Morton Grove, Inc. and Fareva S.A. asked the court to maintain certain materials under seal. Fareva intended to submit the materials in support of its opposition to The Avon Company’s motion for partial summary judgment or, alternatively, to compel Fareva to respond to Avon’s third set of interrogatories.
Fareva divided the materials into two groups. The first group contained information about Fareva’s suppliers or other nonparties. It included email chains, attachments, a presentation concerning an Avon-Fareva transition task force meeting, and excerpts from depositions. Fareva said these materials contained confidential supplier information.
The second group consisted of documents Avon had produced in the case and designated either “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under a stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order entered on October 7, 2022. Fareva stated that it was seeking to seal those documents to comply with the protective order, not asserting that the documents independently met the order’s standard for confidentiality.
Fareva also sought to seal redacted portions of its opposition and its statement of material facts that described or quoted confidential portions of the identified documents. Fareva relied on decisions recognizing that nonparties’ privacy interests can weigh heavily against public access to court filings. It also noted that the court had granted a similar sealing request by Avon in connection with Avon’s motion.
Court’s Action
The filing concludes with “SO ORDERED” and Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein’s signature dated August 22, 2023. The supplied text does not contain a separate statement expressly saying that the sealing motion was granted or denied. Accordingly, the text supports describing the court’s action as an order concerning the sealing of the identified materials, but not assigning a more specific motion disposition. The order addresses confidentiality and court access to litigation materials; it does not decide the parties’ underlying contract or other merits dispute.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.