Etsy, Inc. v. Cashmere and Camel Hair Manufacturers Institute

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : ETSY, INC., : : Plaintiff, : 25-CV-10589 (JMF) : -v- : MEMORANDUM OPINION : AND ORDER CASHMERE AND CAMEL HAIR MANUFACTURERS : INSTITUTE, : : Defendant. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Etsy, Inc. has moved (multiple times) to seal and/or redact its amended complaint, as well as an attachment to that complaint, a lawyer declaration, and a reply letter. See ECF Nos. 5, 9-11, 15. Its motions are DENIED, substantially for the reasons set forth in the (multiple) responses of Defendant Cashmere and Camel Hair Manufacturers Institute (“CCMI”). See ECF No. 14, 17, 20. In brief, the amended complaint and attachment (namely, the contract that forms the basis for some of Plaintiff’s claims) are subject to a strong presumption in favor of public access, see, e.g., Fed. Trade Comm’n v. PepsiCo, Inc., No. 25-CV-664 (JMF), 2025 WL 3484835, at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2025), and Plaintiff does not come close to providing reasons sufficient to overcome the presumption. It relies on its “confidentiality obligations to CCMI,” ECF No. 5, at 1, but “mere agreement between parties to keep a document confidential is not sufficient to justify the sealing or redaction of a ‘judicial document’ subject to the presumption in favor of public access,” Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Mashinsky, No. 25-CV-3349 (JMF), 2025 WL 3514796, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2025), and, in any event, CCMI has explicitly “waived any such confidentiality obligation,” ECF No. 14, at 2. Plaintiff also asserts that disclosure “would reveal commercially sensitive information that could cause competitive harm to Etsy.” ECF No. 5, at 1. But “the type of conclusory invocations of harm” that Plaintiff makes in its motion papers “are plainly inadequate to overcome the presumption in favor of public access.” Lenart v. Coach Inc., 131 F. Supp. 3d 61, 72 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); see also, e.g., PepsiCo, Inc., 2025 WL 3484835, at *6 (“Broad and general findings and conclusory assertions do not cut it.... [B]road allegations of competitive harm . . . fail to show that disclosure would result in an injury sufficiently serious to warrant protection.” (cleaned up)); Diesel S.P.A. v. Diesel Power Gear, LLC, No. 19-CV-09308 (JLR), 2023 WL 5713713, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2023) (observing that “courts are particularly skeptical of sealing information that is commercially sensitive where it is highly relevant to the dispute” (cleaned up)). Accordingly, Plaintiffs motions to seal must be and are DENIED. Absent a motion for a stay pending appeal, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to unseal all filings in this case on January 13, 2026. The Court feels compelled to add one additional word. The parties are admonished that, going forward, the Court will not tolerate the sort of unnecessary and duplicative briefing that occurred here. If something can be said in a single filing, there is no reason to say it again in a second, let alone third, filing. The Court has enough work without having to read the same thing in different forms over and over again. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 5, 9, and 15. SO ORDERED. Dated: January 9, 2026 New York, New York JESSE MAN Uglited States District Judge