Nielsen Consumer LLC v. Circana Group, L.P.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: NIELSEN CONSUMER LLC, Er FILED:_ 12/1/2025 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL -against- 22-CV-3235 (JPO) (KHP) CIRCANA GROUP, L.P., Defendant.

KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On November 25, 2025, Defendant/Counterclaimant, Circana Group L.P. (“Circana”) filed a Letter Motion requesting redaction of certain portions of the official transcript from the November 5, 2025 discovery conference (after the Court ordered a prior set of redactions requested by Plaintiff at ECF No. 666). (ECF No. 673) Circana asserts that the proposed redactions are “limited to non-public, competitively sensitive information pertaining to details under the parties’ agreement, as well as deposition testimony and information contained in confidential documents and communications that have been produced in this litigation.” (/d.)

The Court has reviewed both Plaintiffs and Defendant’s proposed redactions and finds that the redactions proposed at ECF No. 674 are sufficiently tailored to protect trade secrets and other confidential information and are consistent with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (finding that courts may grant motions to seal where the parties make “specific, on the record findings . .. demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and [sealing] is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.”); see also Doe v. New York Univ., No. 20 Civ. 1343 (MKV), 2023 WL 2609315, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.

22, 2023). As Circana notes, the transcript pertains to discovery disputes, therefore the presumption of access to the public “‘has only modest weight,’ which can be overcome by ‘a valid need to protect the confidentiality of sensitive business information.’” (ECF No. 365, at 6 (quoting Brinks Glob. Servs. USA, Inc. v. Bonita Pearl, Inc., No. 22 Civ. 6653 (PGG) (BCM), 2023 WL 4399042, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2023))). Here, the Court finds that the need to protect the specific trade information highlighted by the parties outweighs the interest in public access to the entirety of the November 5, 2025 transcript. See Doe v. New York Univ., No. 20 Civ. 1343 (MKV), 2023 WL 2609315, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2023) Therefore, the proposed redactions at ECF No. 674 are GRANTED.

The parties are reminded that the information placed under seal in connection with this request may not be similarly treated in connection with a dispositive motion.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 673 Further, the Clerk of Court is also respectfully directed to keep the documents at ECF Nos. and 674 under seal.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2025 vO New York, New York Pas Hf kb KATHARINEH. PARKER) United States Magistrate Judge