BakeMark USA LLC v. Negron

S.D. New York

BakeMark USA LLC v. Negron

DecidedMay 15, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-02360

StatusUnknown

This text of BakeMark USA LLC v. Negron (BakeMark USA LLC v. Negron) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BakeMark USA LLC v. Negron, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT crs SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BAKEMARK USA LLC, | DATE FILED: 05/15/2023 | Plaintiff, 23-CV-2360 (AT) (BCM) -against- ORDER BRIAN NEGRON, et al., Defendants.

BARBARA MOSES, United States Magistrate Judge. The Court is in receipt of plaintiff's motion (Dkt. 44) requesting that Exhibit 3 to the parties’ joint letter dated May 9, 2023 (Joint Letter) (Dkt. 43), which is separately filed under seal at Dkt. 46, remain under seal. Plaintiff argues that sealing or redacting 1s warranted because the documents comprising Exhibit 3 contain "the names of BakeMark's customers, invoices identifying sensitive customer information[], and screenshots of the system where BakeMark's confidential customer information is stored." Pl. Mem. (Dkt. 45) at 1-2. The Court has carefully considered the sealing request and the documents at issue under the standards set forth in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). As plaintiffs note, courts in this District routinely grant sealing requests when they contain "sensitive commercial information." Pl. Mem. at 3 (citing Julian v. MetLife, Inc., 2021 WL 3887763, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2021), leave to appeal denied sub nom. McKinney v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.,2021 WL 7451180 (2d Cir. Dec. 21, 2021); Lexington Furniture Indus., Inc. v. Lexington Co., AB, 2021 WL 1143694, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2021)). For the reasons stated in plaintiff's memorandum, the Court finds that plaintiff's request to seal is sufficiently "narrowly tailored to serve that interest." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. The motion is therefore GRANTED, and the document at Dkt. 46 shall remain under seal. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. 44. The Clerk of Court need not alter the viewing levels of any documents filed on the Court's electronic docket. Dated: New York, New York SO ORDERED. May 15, 2023 ele dU BARBARA MOSES United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT crs SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BAKEMARK USA LLC, | DATE FILED: 05/15/2023 | Plaintiff, 23-CV-2360 (AT) (BCM) -against- ORDER BRIAN NEGRON, et al., Defendants.

BARBARA MOSES, United States Magistrate Judge. The Court is in receipt of plaintiff's motion (Dkt. 44) requesting that Exhibit 3 to the parties’ joint letter dated May 9, 2023 (Joint Letter) (Dkt. 43), which is separately filed under seal at Dkt. 46, remain under seal. Plaintiff argues that sealing or redacting 1s warranted because the documents comprising Exhibit 3 contain "the names of BakeMark's customers, invoices identifying sensitive customer information[], and screenshots of the system where BakeMark's confidential customer information is stored." Pl. Mem. (Dkt. 45) at 1-2. The Court has carefully considered the sealing request and the documents at issue under the standards set forth in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). As plaintiffs note, courts in this District routinely grant sealing requests when they contain "sensitive commercial information." Pl. Mem. at 3 (citing Julian v. MetLife, Inc., 2021 WL 3887763, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2021), leave to appeal denied sub nom. McKinney v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.,2021 WL 7451180 (2d Cir. Dec. 21, 2021); Lexington Furniture Indus., Inc. v. Lexington Co., AB, 2021 WL 1143694, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2021)). For the reasons stated in plaintiff's memorandum, the Court finds that plaintiff's request to seal is sufficiently "narrowly tailored to serve that interest." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. The motion is therefore GRANTED, and the document at Dkt. 46 shall remain under seal. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. 44. The Clerk of Court need not alter the viewing levels of any documents filed on the Court's electronic docket. Dated: New York, New York SO ORDERED. May 15, 2023 ele dU BARBARA MOSES United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BakeMark USA LLC v. Negron, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bakemark-usa-llc-v-negron-nysd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack