Presidio, Inc. v. Driven Acquisition, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-06235
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Presidio v. Driven Acquisition: Magistrate Judge Lehrburger granted Plaintiffs’ request to seal and redact filings containing confidential customer and business information.
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
- Presidio, Inc. v. Driven Acquisition, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06235
- Laura Swain
- 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.”
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.