Coach IP Holdings, LLC v. ACS Group Acquisition LLC
1:23-cv-10612
| S.D.N.Y. | Aug 27, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs (Coach IP Holdings, LLC, Coach Services, Inc., and Tapestry, Inc.) sought to file under seal three documents connected to their motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction: a License Agreement, a Loan Agreement, and an Intercreditor Agreement.
- The documents in question were submitted as evidence relevant to the adjudication of the substantive legal rights of the parties.
- The Coach License Agreement is a contract between Coach Services, Inc. and Incipio (predecessor to Vinci Brands LLC), dated January 7, 2019.
- The Monroe Loan Agreement and the Intercreditor Agreement involve Vinci, Monroe Capital, and Siena Lending Group, all non-parties to the suit.
- Legal standards require public access to judicial documents unless "higher values" such as confidentiality of sensitive commercial information outweigh that presumption.
- Prior agreements of similar nature (e.g., the Siena-Vinci Security Agreement) had been filed publicly, affecting the court's assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to seal the Coach License Agreement | Disclosure would harm competitive business interests | [Not specified; likely no objection] | Motion to seal granted for full document |
| Whether to seal Monroe Loan & Intercreditor Agreements | Confidential financial/business info should justify sealing | Non-party status & general confidentiality insufficient | Motion to seal denied without prejudice, redactions allowed if justified |
| Application of public access presumption | Documents' sensitive info outweighs presumption | Presumption favors disclosure | Strong presumption of access, partial exceptions for sensitive info |
| Requirements for future sealing motions | General confidentiality sufficient | Specific justifications required | Coach must confer with interested parties, justify any redactions |
Key Cases Cited
- Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (establishing the three-part test for sealing judicial documents and articulating the strong presumption of public access)
- Olson v. Major League Baseball, 29 F.4th 59 (2d Cir. 2022) (clarifying the framework for public access to judicial documents)
- Bernsten v. O’Reilly, 307 F. Supp. 3d 161 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (confidentiality clause alone does not overcome presumption of public access)