Nike, Inc. v. Stockx LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-00983
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nike, Inc. v. StockX LLC, Judge Caproni granted the parties’ request to exchange and file proposed redactions for replies supporting Daubert motions.
Nike, Inc. and StockX LLC, whose replies and supporting materials were subject to the approved sealing and redaction process.
What happened
In Nike, Inc. v. StockX LLC, Nike and StockX jointly asked the court to keep their replies to motions concerning expert testimony under seal. They said the replies cited confidential material, including expert reports and deposition transcripts.
The parties proposed exchanging redactions by November 22, 2023, and filing their proposed redactions under seal by November 29, 2023, with public letters explaining why sealing was justified. They also agreed to file public versions with appropriate redactions.
Judge Valerie E. Caproni granted the application and approved the proposed process. The order did not decide the underlying dispute or the parties’ motions concerning expert testimony.
The detailed version
- Nike, Inc. v. Stockx LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00983
- Valerie Caproni
- Nov. 19, 2023
Background
Nike and StockX jointly requested sealed treatment for their replies to motions seeking to exclude proposed expert testimony under the standards associated with Daubert. The parties stated that the replies relied on information designated confidential under their stipulated protective order, including expert reports and deposition transcripts.
Requested Procedure
The parties proposed exchanging their proposed redactions for confidential information by November 22, 2023. They also proposed that each party file its proposed redactions under seal by November 29, 2023, together with a publicly filed letter explaining why sealed treatment was justified. They said the procedure would allow each party to review the other’s reply, consult with its client, and apply redactions narrowly.
Ruling
Judge Valerie E. Caproni granted the application. The order approved the parties’ proposed schedule for exchanging and filing proposed redactions. The opinion does not rule on the merits of the Daubert motions or determine which specific information ultimately must remain sealed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.