Body Glove IP Holdings, LP v. Exist, Inc., 1:21-cv-01181

Body Glove owns a registered mark and licenses it to over 30 licensees under detailed, proprietary design and approval guidelines.
Body Glove produced marketing/approval communications and deposition excerpts to Defendants under a Protective Order with "Confidential" or "Attorneys' Eyes Only" designations.
Defendants Exist, Inc. and Joshua Glickman moved for summary judgment on August 19, 2022; Body Glove responded on September 9, 2022 and attached several exhibits and excerpts it contends are confidential (Exs. 1, 2, 3, 6 and related portions of its filings).
The challenged materials reveal Body Glove's internal approval process, feedback to licensees, and contain references to agreements with non-parties.
Body Glove seeks continued sealing of the identified exhibits and the unredacted responses, arguing disclosure would harm its competitive position; counsel reports conferral with Defendants and the request may be unopposed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court should continue to seal exhibits and unredacted responses	Exhibits contain sensitive, proprietary licensing/approval processes produced under the Protective Order and would cause competitive harm if public	Public and press have a qualified First Amendment right of access to judicial documents; sealing should be resisted absent strong showing	No court ruling in this filing; Body Glove requests continued sealing
Whether confidential business information can overcome presumption of access	Business strategies, internal analyses, and third‑party agreements justify rebutting access presumption	Access presumption favors disclosure unless outweighing interest shown	Body Glove asserts controlling precedent supports sealing; no ruling here
Whether agreements or references to non‑parties warrant sealing	Prior authority favors sealing documents reflecting business relationships with non‑parties	Public interest in transparency of court records	Body Glove contends third‑party confidentiality warrants sealing; no ruling here
Whether sealing must be narrowly tailored	Request is limited to specific exhibits and excerpts to protect proprietary content only	Any sealing must be the least restrictive necessary to protect interests	Body Glove represents its request is narrowly tailored; no ruling here

Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2004) (recognizes a qualified First Amendment right of access to judicial documents that may be rebutted to protect higher values)
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (sealing must be narrowly tailored to serve the proffered interest)