Tribe of Two, LLC v. Tods, S.p.A., Ltd.
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-03255
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Tribe of Two v. Tod’s, Judge Clarke granted letter-motions to seal while reserving final review of the materials’ sealing or redaction.
Tribe of Two, LLC, Tod’s S.p.A., Deva, Inc., and members of the public seeking access to the identified court filings. Until further order, the sealed materials are accessible only to attorneys appearing for the parties and court personnel.
What happened
Tribe of Two, LLC sued Tod’s S.p.A. and Deva, Inc. Plaintiff asked to file materials supporting its request for letters rogatory in Italy with redactions protecting defendants’ confidential business information. The requested redactions concerned supplier identities, technical drawings, and product-design communications.
The court granted the letter-motions to seal identified as ECF Nos. 61, 68, and 74. It directed the clerk to keep ECF Nos. 58–60, 65–67, and 72–73 under seal until further order, with access limited to attorneys appearing for the parties and court personnel. The court said it would decide whether to keep the materials sealed or use redactions when ruling on the underlying motions.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke ordered the clerk to terminate ECF Nos. 61, 71, and 74. The order concerns confidentiality and public access to court filings, not the merits of the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Tribe of Two, LLC v. Tods, S.p.A., Ltd. · No. 1:23-cv-03255
- Clarke
- May 23, 2024
Background
Tribe of Two, LLC filed materials supporting a motion for issuance of letters rogatory in Italy. Letters rogatory are formal requests for assistance from a court in another country. The materials were filed publicly in redacted form and under seal in unredacted form. Defendants Tod’s S.p.A. and Deva, Inc. sought protection for information they designated confidential under the parties’ stipulated protective order.
The requested redactions covered supplier identities and roles, production-related technical drawings, and internal emails concerning work performed in the product-design process. Defendants argued that disclosure could harm their competitive position. The filing discussed the Second Circuit’s three-step approach to sealing judicial documents: determining whether the materials are judicial documents, weighing the presumption of public access, and considering whether competing interests justify limited closure.
Ruling
The court’s order states that the letter-motions to seal at ECF Nos. 61, 68, and 74 are granted. The court will assess whether to keep the materials sealed or allow redacted versions when deciding the underlying motions. Pending further order, the clerk was directed to keep ECF Nos. 58–60, 65–67, and 72–73 under seal. Access is limited to attorneys appearing for the parties and court personnel.
The clerk was also directed to terminate ECF Nos. 61, 71, and 74. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke’s order does not decide the underlying motion for letters rogatory or the merits of the dispute between the parties.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.