Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 26, 2024

Presidio, Inc. v. Driven Acquisition, Inc.

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-06235
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

Presidio v. Driven Acquisition: Magistrate Judge Lehrburger granted Plaintiffs’ request to seal and redact filings containing confidential customer and business information.

Who this affects

Presidio, Inc., Presidio Networked Solutions LLC, Presidio Networked Solutions Group, LLC, Driven Acquisition, Inc., and the public’s access to the specified court filings.

What happened

In Presidio, Inc. v. Driven Acquisition, Inc., Plaintiffs asked to keep unredacted versions of a discovery letter motion and certain exhibits under seal, while filing redacted versions publicly.

Plaintiffs said the materials contained confidential customer and business-relationship information, including customer and partner names and project details. The court granted the request to seal.

Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted the request on March 26, 2024.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Presidio, Inc. v. Driven Acquisition, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06235
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Mar. 26, 2024

Background

Plaintiffs Presidio, Inc., Presidio Networked Solutions LLC, and Presidio Networked Solutions Group, LLC asked the court for permission to keep under seal unredacted versions of an upcoming letter motion seeking an informal discovery conference and an order compelling Defendants to collect documents and electronically stored information, use Plaintiffs’ proposed search terms, and produce responsive documents. Plaintiffs also sought to file redacted versions of the letter motion and certain exhibits on the public docket.

Reason for the request

Plaintiffs stated that the material designated confidential under the parties’ protective order contained customer-related and other business-relationship information, including customer and partner names and project information. Plaintiffs represented that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored and that most of the papers would remain public.

Ruling

The court granted the request to seal. The opinion text does not provide a separate written explanation beyond the court’s endorsement stating, “The request to seal is granted.”

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.