Bautista v. Chanel, Inc.

Full title: MIGUEL BAUTISA, Plaintiff, v. CHANEL INC., et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Aug 6, 2021

20 Civ. 4676 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2021)

Opinion

20 Civ. 4676 (LGS)

08-06-2021

MIGUEL BAUTISA, Plaintiff, v. CHANEL INC., et al., Defendants.

Scott Simpson Raya F. Saksouk Menken Simpson & Rozger LLP, Plaintiff Miguel Bautista Lorie E. Almon Paul H. Galligan Mary Ahrens Vadasz Daniel I. Small Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Defendants Chanel, Inc. and Julie Papaioannou

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:

Scott Simpson Raya F. Saksouk Menken Simpson & Rozger LLP, Plaintiff Miguel Bautista

Lorie E. Almon Paul H. Galligan Mary Ahrens Vadasz Daniel I. Small Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Defendants Chanel, Inc. and Julie Papaioannou

ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:

WHEREAS, on July 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to seal Exhibits 9, 10, 11 and 15 of the Declaration of Scott Simpson in opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”) (Dkt. No. 81), which are materials that Defendants designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the parties' Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order (Dkt. No. 41). Dkt. No. 76.

WHEREAS, on August 6, 2021, Defendants filed a letter in support of the Motion. Dkt. No. 83. It is hereby

ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. Exhibits 9, 10, 11 and 15 of the Declaration of Scott Simpson at Docket No. 81 shall remain sealed. Only the parties listed in the attached Appendix will have access to Docket No. 81. Although “[t]he common law right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted in our nation's history, ” this right is not absolute, and courts “must balance competing considerations against” the presumption of access. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) (“[T]he decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”). Filing the above-referenced document in redacted form is necessary to prevent the unauthorized dissemination of confidential business information.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Docket No. 76.

APPENDIX

Pursuant to Individual Rule I.D.3, Defendants identify below all parties and attorneys of record who should have access to the sealed documents: