Opinion
15-CV-870 (VM) (VF)
12-02-2022
PEERLESS NETWORK, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. AT&T CORP., Defendant.
ORDER
VALERIE FIGUEREDO, United States Magistrate Judge.
The parties presently have four outstanding motions to seal (ECF Nos. 151, 167, 192, and 196) on the docket in this action. Three of the requests are made by Plaintiffs to redact documents (ECF Nos. 151, 192, and 196). The parties also jointly requested redactions to the Court's May 18, 2022 Order (ECF No. 163). Having reviewed the motions to seal, Plaintiffs' motions to seal the requested documents and the parties' joint request to redact the Court's May 18, 2022 Order are GRANTED.
In the three motions to seal from Plaintiffs, they request to redact: (1) “specific terms” of the parties' settlement agreement, including the value of services; and (2) “various confidential aspects of [the parties'] respective businesses,” including sensitive technical data, sensitive pricing terms, network capabilities and functions, and Defendant's confidential information of its pricing with other third-party competitors. ECF No. 151 at 1; ECF No. 192 at 1; ECF No. 196 at 1. Similarly, in the parties' joint request to redact the Court's May 18, 2022 order, the parties' request to redact confidential terms of the settlement agreement, including two specific dollar amounts, which were originally filed on the docket under seal. ECF No. 167 at 1.
Courts in this District routinely permit parties to seal or redact commercially sensitive information in order to protect confidential business interests and financial information. See, e.g., Rubik's Brand Ltd. v. Flambeau, Inc., No. 17-CV-6559 (PGG) (KHP), 2021 WL 1085338, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2021); Gracyzk v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., No. 18-CV-6465 (PGG), 2020 WL 1435031, at *8-9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2020) (citing cases).
The parties seek to redact commercially sensitive business information, and their interest in maintaining that information confidential outweighs the public's interest in the sealed material. As such, based on the standard set forth by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006), the motions to seal are GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 151, 167, 192, and 196.