WiAV Solutions Inc. v. HTC Corporation

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 7, 2021·No. 1:19-cv-04978·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #@:

WIAV SOLUTIONS INC., Plaintiff, 19-CV-4978 (PGG) (KHP) -against- ORDER TO SEAL

HTC CORPORATION,

Defendant.

nooo -----------------X KATHARINE H. PARKER, United States Magistrate Judge: On February 16, 2021 Defendant HTC Corporation (“HTC”) filed a motion to seal portions of seven contracts submitted in conjunction with HTC’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 89.) On March 9, 2021 this Court held that the proposed redactions were too broad and ordered HTC to submit revised redactions narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of the parties to the contracts at issue. (ECF No. 116.) On March 23, 2021 HTC submitted the revised proposed redactions. (ECF Nos. 117-18.) The Court, having reviewed HTC’s submission, finds that the revised redactions are narrowly tailored to protect legitimate business and privacy interests and to avoid competitive harm that would result from disclosure, consistent with the Second Circuit’s standard for the sealing of judicial documents set forth in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).

CONCLUSION Accordingly, and for the reasons already set forth in the Court’s Opinion and Order at ECF No. 116, the Court hereby grants HTC’s motion to seal. The Court respectfully requests that the Clerk of Court ensure that the documents filed at ECF No. 118 remain under seal.

SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York June 7, 2021 / Kat hawk H f alle KATHARINE H. PARKER United States Magistrate Judge

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

WiAV Solutions Inc. v. HTC Corporation, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

WiAV Solutions Inc. v. HTC Corporation (WiAV Solutions Inc. v. HTC Corporation) — 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)