Red Hawk, LLC v. Colorforms Brand LLC

Background

The court considered the parties’ requests to seal or redact exhibits connected to defendants’ pending partial motion for summary judgment. The requested redactions covered: (1) license agreements between Colorforms Brand LLC and a non-party; (2) a royalty percentage in Red Hawk, LLC’s opposition memorandum; (3) the reply declaration of Maryann Comuniello and its exhibits; and (4) the reply declaration of Kyra Halperin and its exhibits.

The parties stated that the information was confidential and included royalty rates between Colorforms Brand and a third party, the identities of Colorforms Brand’s licensees and licensors, financial contract terms, and sales information.

Legal Standard

The court applied the Second Circuit’s three-step test for sealing documents. First, it determined whether the materials were “judicial documents”—documents relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. Second, it assessed the strength of the common-law presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible. Third, it balanced that presumption against competing interests, including privacy and protection of sensitive business information.

The court found that the materials submitted for consideration on summary judgment were judicial documents and that the presumption of public access was at its highest. It nevertheless explained that specific pricing, sales, revenue, and similar commercial information may justify sealing when the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. It also recognized privacy interests belonging to non-parties whose identities or contractual information appeared in the materials.

Ruling

The court found that the proposed redactions were limited to specific pricing and sales figures, sensitive contractual information, and related information. It concluded that the redactions sufficiently protected competitively sensitive information and non-parties’ privacy interests without depriving the public of meaningful access. The court also noted that a prior order had sealed similar royalty information.

The court GRANTED the Sealing Requests. It ordered that ECF Nos. 96, 97, 109, and 110 remain visible only to selected parties, and directed the Clerk of Court to close ECF Nos. 94, 99, 100, 101, and 108.