Essilor International SAS v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided November 13, 2024·No. 1:22-cv-03361·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: monn nrc nanan KK DATE FILED:_11/13/2024 Essilor International SAS et al, : Plaintiff, : : 22-cv-3361 (LJL) -v- : : ORDER J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., : Defendants. : wee KX LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: Defendant’s motion at Dkt. No. 209 is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant may file the document as redacted at Dkt. No. 210-1. The document at issue is a judicial document, the weight of the presumption is lessened because it was submitted in connection with a discovery motion and the information would be of little value to those monitoring the federal courts, see Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006), and, while the redacted information is dated, it does appear to have some business sensitivity, see CBF Industria de Gusa S/A v. AMCT Holdings, Inc., 2021 WL 4135007, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2021). The motion to seal the documents at Dkt. Nos. 141-1, 141-11, 142-1 and 142-11 is denied. The documents were filed on the public docket on May 15, 2024, and have therefore been accessible to the public for over six months. Moreover, the information contained in the letters is at a level of such generality (and is so dated) that it does not appear to be business sensitive. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Dkt. No. 209.

SO ORDERED. wee Dated: November 13, 2024 New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge

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

Essilor International SAS v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Essilor International SAS v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Essilor International SAS v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
435 F.3d 110 (Second Circuit, 2006)