Nike, Inc. v. Stockx LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-00983
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nike v. StockX, Judge Caproni granted the parties’ request to initially seal expert-testimony opposition briefs and set a redaction schedule.
Nike, Inc. and StockX LLC, whose opposition briefs and supporting materials were the subject of the sealing request.
What happened
Nike, Inc. v. StockX LLC involved a joint request by Nike and StockX concerning briefs opposing efforts to exclude expert testimony.
The parties said the briefs relied on confidential material, including expert reports and expert-deposition transcripts covered by their protective order. They asked to file the briefs under seal first and proposed exchanging redactions and filing public versions with explanations for the proposed sealing.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted the application on November 3, 2023. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute or the admissibility of the expert testimony.
The detailed version
- Nike, Inc. v. Stockx LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00983
- Valerie Caproni
- Nov. 3, 2023
Background
Nike and StockX jointly submitted a letter asking the Court to allow sealed filing of their opposition briefs concerning proposed expert testimony. The parties said those briefs cited confidential material designated under their stipulated protective order, including expert reports and transcripts of expert depositions.
The Request
The parties asked to file the opposition briefs under seal initially while they reviewed each other’s briefs and exhibits and consulted with their clients about proposed redactions. They proposed exchanging redactions by November 8, 2023, and filing proposed redactions under seal by November 10, 2023, together with publicly filed briefs explaining why sealing was justified.
Ruling
The Court stated, “Application GRANTED,” and ordered the matter accordingly. The order addressed the filing and potential sealing of the expert-testimony opposition materials; it did not decide the underlying case or the admissibility of the expert testimony.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.