Presidio, Inc. v. Driven Acquisition, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-06235
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Presidio v. Driven Acquisition, Judge Lehrburger granted Presidio’s request to seal and redact confidential customer and business-relationship information.
Presidio and the public docket: Presidio was allowed to protect specified confidential customer and business-relationship information, while redacted versions could remain publicly filed.
What happened
In Presidio, Inc. v. Driven Acquisition, Inc., the plaintiffs asked the court to keep an upcoming legal brief and some exhibits under seal while filing redacted versions publicly. They said the materials contained confidential customer and business-relationship information, including customer and partner names and project details.
The plaintiffs said the proposed redactions were limited and relied on an existing protective order. They also pointed to earlier sealing approvals in the case and decisions allowing protection of sensitive commercial information.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted the plaintiffs’ request. The order therefore allowed the unredacted brief and certain exhibits to remain under seal and permitted redacted versions to be filed on the public docket.
The detailed version
- Presidio, Inc. v. Driven Acquisition, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06235
- Laura Swain
- May 8, 2024
Background
Presidio, Inc., Presidio Networked Solutions LLC, and Presidio Networked Solutions Group, LLC—identified together as “Presidio”—submitted a letter-motion under the case’s protective order and the magistrate judge’s individual rules. They asked the court to approve keeping unredacted versions of their forthcoming memorandum opposing the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, along with certain exhibits, under seal. They also asked to file redacted versions of those materials on the public electronic docket.
The plaintiffs said the information they sought to protect included confidential customer-related and business-relationship information, such as customer and partner names and project information. They represented that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored and that most of the papers would remain available publicly. The letter also stated that the court had previously approved two similar sealing applications by the plaintiffs.
Ruling
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted the letter-motion. The order allowed the unredacted memorandum and certain exhibits to be maintained under seal and allowed redacted versions to be filed publicly. The text supplied contains the court’s granting notation but does not provide additional reasoning beyond the plaintiffs’ letter.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.