Newton v. LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc.
- Loretta Preska
- 1:23-cv-10753
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Newton v. LVMH, Judge Preska granted defendants’ request to seal two materials tied to a confidential prior arbitration.
The defendants may keep docket entries 32-3 and 32-4 under seal, limiting public access to those materials; the order also directs the Clerk of Court to close docket number 29.
What happened
In Newton v. LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc., the defendants asked to file under seal materials supporting their motion to compel arbitration and/or dismiss. The request was unopposed.
The court explained that court records generally have a strong presumption of public access. It found that the materials’ connection to the parties’ earlier arbitration, which was subject to confidentiality provisions, justified sealing them.
Senior Judge Loretta A. Preska granted the request to seal docket entries 32-3 and 32-4. She also directed the Clerk of Court to close the open letter motion at docket number 29.
The detailed version
- Newton v. LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-10753
- Loretta Preska
- Feb. 21, 2024
Background
The defendants filed an unopposed letter motion asking to file under seal certain materials supporting their motion to compel arbitration and/or dismiss. The materials were docketed as entries 32-3 and 32-4.
Sealing Standard
The court stated that judicial documents carry a strong presumption of public access. It explained that sealing is justified when the court makes specific findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values and narrowly tailors the sealing order to achieve that purpose.
Ruling
The court found that the defendants’ stated reason for sealing—that the documents related to the parties’ prior arbitration proceeding, which was subject to confidentiality provisions—outweighed the presumption of public access. Senior Judge Loretta A. Preska therefore granted the defendants’ request to file entries 32-3 and 32-4 under seal. She directed the Clerk of Court to close the open letter motion at docket number 29.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.