Presidio, Inc. v. Driven Acquisition, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-06235
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Presidio v. Driven, Judge Lehrburger granted Plaintiffs’ request to keep proposed filings sealed and redacted because they contained alleged trade secrets and confidential customer information.
The ruling affects the plaintiffs’ three proposed filings and the public’s access to information in them, including alleged trade secrets and confidential customer and business information.
What happened
In Presidio, Inc. v. Driven Acquisition, Inc., the plaintiffs asked the court to keep their memorandum, proposed second amended complaint, and redlined version under seal, while filing redacted versions publicly. They said the documents contained trade secrets and confidential information about customers and business relationships.
The plaintiffs said their proposed redactions were limited to information such as customer names, customer requirements, and transaction pricing and profit margins. They also said the defendants had declined to agree to the sealing request.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted the plaintiffs’ request to keep the documents under seal and with redactions on the public docket.
The detailed version
- Presidio, Inc. v. Driven Acquisition, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06235
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 17, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs, collectively referred to in the filing as Presidio, asked the court for permission to maintain three documents under seal: a memorandum supporting a motion to file a second amended complaint, a clean version of the proposed complaint, and a redlined version showing changes. They also asked to maintain redacted versions of those documents on the public electronic docket.
The plaintiffs argued that the documents contained the trade secrets they alleged the defendants had misappropriated, along with confidential customer and business-relationship information. The proposed redactions included customer names, customer requirements, and pricing and profit margins for specific transactions. The plaintiffs represented that the redactions were narrowly tailored and that most of the documents would remain public. They also stated that the defendants declined to consent to any sealing.
Court’s Action
The court granted the plaintiffs’ request to maintain the memorandum, clean proposed second amended complaint, and redlined proposed second amended complaint under seal and with redactions on the public docket. The order was signed by Robert W. Lehrburger, United States Magistrate Judge.
Effect
The ruling limits public access to specified portions of the three filings while allowing redacted versions to appear on the public docket. The order addressed sealing and redaction; the provided text does not state that the court decided whether the alleged misappropriation occurred.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.