The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------x
THOMAS ALLEGRA, YESENIA ARIZA,
MARIANA ELISE EMMERT, STUART
ROGOFF, GRACELYNN TENAGLIA, and
MELISSA VERRASTRO, individually and on MEMORANDUM & ORDER
behalf of others similarly situated, 17-CV-05216 (PKC) (RLM)
Plaintiffs,
- against -
LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA
d/b/a LensCrafters,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------x
PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge:
Before the Court is the motion of Defendant Luxottica Retail North America, doing
business as LensCrafters (“LensCrafters”), to seal or redact certain documents and information
submitted with the parties’ class certification and Daubert briefing. (Dkt. 257.) Plaintiffs oppose
LensCrafters’ motion. (Dkt. 259.) For the reasons explained, the Court grants in part and denies
in part LensCrafters’ motion.
On May 14, 2018, the Court so ordered a joint Protective Order proposed by the parties.
(5/14/2018 Docket Order; Dkt. 45.) Pursuant to the Protective Order, the parties may designate as
“Confidential” any information, document, or thing, or portion thereof, that, inter alia, “contains
trade secrets, competitively sensitive technical, marketing, financial, sales or other confidential
business information.” (Dkt. 45, ¶ 1); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). LensCrafters now seeks to
keep confidential two categories of information that they argue were contemplated by this
provision of the Protective Order. First, “manufacturing-related information, including
Luxottica’s proprietary Quality Manufacturing Standards as well as the results of capability studies
that analyzed confidential output data from eyeglasses manufactured in the normal course of
business.” (Dkt. 257, at 1.) Second, “internal, confidential business communications discussing
LensCrafters’ product development and testing, employee training, customer experience and sales
strategies, advertising strategies, and marketing claim support.” (Id.) In support of the request for
redactions and sealing, LensCrafters provides the sworn declarations of two Luxottica employees,
David Persinger and Jason Jones, who declare, in sum, that the documents and information at issue
are confidential and proprietary, and that disclosure “could be capitalized upon by Luxottica’s
competitors, causing harm to Luxottica.” (Dkt. 257, at 1; Persinger Decl., Dkt. 257-2; Jones Decl.,
Dkt. 257-3.)
LEGAL STANDARD
“Federal courts employ two related but distinct presumptions in favor of public access to
court proceedings and records: a strong form rooted in the First Amendment and a slightly weaker
form based in federal common law.” Newsday LLC v. County of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 163 (2d
Cir. 2013). Under the First Amendment analysis, the court must first determine “whether
‘experience and logic’ support making the document available to the public,” which involves
considering “whether the documents ‘have historically been open to the press and general public’
(experience)” and “whether ‘public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of
the particular process in question’ (logic).”1 United States v. Erie County, N.Y., 763 F.3d 235, 239
(2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006)).
If the court finds that the First Amendment right to access judicial documents attaches, then “the
1 An additional approach to determining whether the public should have First Amendment
protection in their attempts to access certain judicial documents “considers the extent to which the
judicial documents are derived from or are a necessary corollary of the capacity to attend the
relevant proceedings.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006)
(brackets, quotation marks, and citation omitted).
documents ‘may be sealed only if specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that
closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.’” Id.
(brackets omitted) (quoting Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120).
Under the Second Circuit’s common law right of public access, the court first determines
whether the document is a “judicial document” by considering whether it is “relevant to the
performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” Id. (quoting Lugosch, 435
F.3d at 119). Should the court conclude that the document is a “judicial document,” then it must
“determine the weight” of the presumption of public access, id. (quoting Lugosch, 435 F.3d at
119), which is “governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial
power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts,” id.
(quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995)). Finally, the court will
balance the “weight of the presumption of access” with “competing considerations against
disclosure.” Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120). Access should be denied
only if competing interests outweigh the presumption of access. Id.
DISCUSSION
Before determining whether disclosure of the documents and information identified in
LensCrafters’ motion is required, the Court must determine whether these documents are, in fact,
“judicial documents.” Erie County, N.Y., 763 F.3d at 239–40. The Court concludes that they are
because they are offered in support of the parties’ class certification and Daubert briefs. As such,
these documents are highly “relevant to the judicial function and useful to the judicial process in
probing behind the pleadings to determine whether the plaintiff’s suit meets the special criteria set
forth in Rule 23 for class certification.” Tropical Sails Corp. v. Yext, Inc., No. 14-CV-7582 (JFK),
2016 WL 1451548, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2016); see Bowling v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 17-
CV-3982 (AJN), 2019 WL 1760162, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2019) (finding that documents
submitted in support of class certification motion are “judicial documents”); Mark v. Gawker
Media LLC, No. 13-CV-4347 (AJN), 2015 WL 7288641, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2015) (same).
Next, the Court finds that under both common law and the First Amendment these
documents are afforded a strong presumption of public access. The weight of this presumption is
not based on the extent to which the Court may reference or rely on any of these documents in
deciding the class certification and Daubert motions. See Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 48 (2d
Cir. 2019) (explaining that the Circuit has “expressly rejected the proposition that different types
of documents might receive different weights of presumption based on the extent to which they
were relied upon in resolving a motion for summary judgment” (brackets, quotation marks, and
citation omitted)). Rather, the strength of the presumption “arises from . . . the public’s interest in
monitoring the judiciary’s exercise of its powers under Article III,” and exists “even in private
business disputes,” and particularly where the documents relate to matters of public concern.
Alcon Vision, LLC v. Lens.com, No. 18-CV-407 (NG) (RLM), 2020 WL 3791865, at *4 (E.D.N.Y.
July 7, 2020). “Class actions are by definition of public interest because some members of the
public are members of the case, [thus] ‘the standards for denying public access to the record’
should [] be strictly construed.” Grayson v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. 13-CV-1799 (WWE), 2017 WL
923907, at *1 (D. Conn. Mar. 7, 2017) (quoting Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016)). The Court finds that here, in the context of a class
action alleging deceptive advertising about a consumer good, there is a strong presumption of
public access to the documents filed in support of the parties’ briefs.
Finally, the Court weighs the strong presumption of access against competing concerns
about the disclosure of the documents and information.
I. Confidential and Proprietary Manufacturing Information
LensCrafters seeks to seal or redact three categories of purportedly confidential and
proprietary manufacturing information. (Dkt. 257, at 2–3.)
A. Luxottica’s Internal Quality Manufacturing Standards
LensCrafters seek to keep under seal its technical Quality Manufacturing Standards and to
redact references to Luxottica’s internal manufacturing tolerances. (Dkt. 257, at 2.) In support of
this request, David Persinger, who is Director of Engineering at Luxottica America, Inc., explains
that these standards and tolerances, “which govern Luxottica’s fabrication of prescription
eyeglasses sold to customers,” are “proprietary to Luxottica and are not industry standards and
tolerances.” (Persinger Decl., Dkt, 257-2, ¶¶ 1–2, 4.) Further, Persinger states that these standards
and tolerances are “not known outside of Luxottica,” “not intended to be shared outside of
Luxottica,” and that the Quality Manufacturing Standards are “unique” to Luxottica and include
“instructions specific to Luxottica’s proprietary lens designs and specifications.” (Id. ¶¶ 6–7.)
Finally, Persinger states that public disclosure of these standards and tolerances would result in
“competitive harm” because Luxottica’s competitors could use this manufacturing standards and
tolerances information “to alter and improve their own manufacturing processes and derive a
competitive advantage against Luxottica.” (Id. ¶¶ 8–9.) Having reviewed Luxottica’s technical
Quality Manufacturing Standards, which include a litany of specific manufacturing tolerances for
various types of lenses, as well as a dozen “notes” associated with those standards (see Ex. A to
Persinger Decl., Dkt. 257-2, at ECF2 6–9), the Court finds that information about Luxottica’s
manufacturing standards and tolerances is proprietary technical information that if disclosed could
2 Citations to “ECF” refer to the pagination generated by the Court’s CM/ECF docketing
system and not the document’s internal pagination.
expose LensCrafters to competitive harm. Based on Persinger’s declaration, that harm would be
more than mere “injury to competitive position, as might flow from embarrassing publicity
attendant upon public revelations.” Alcon Vision, LLC, 2020 WL 3791865, at *9 (alteration,
quotation marks, and citation omitted). Rather, as is apparent to the Court, and highlighted by
Persinger, the disclosure of this information would provide a blueprint of sorts from which
Luxottica’s competitors might “alter and improve their own manufacturing processes” to gain a
competitive advantage over Luxottica. (Persinger Decl., Dkt, 257-2, ¶¶ 8–9.) Thus, the Court
finds that despite the strong presumption of disclosure that attaches to this information, sealing the
Quality Manufacturing Standards and redacting references to Luxottica’s internal manufacturing
tolerances is justified.
B. Results of Internal Machine Capability Studies
LensCrafters also seeks to redact (1) the results of capability studies conducted by its expert
Allyn Hummel that purport to demonstrate that Luxottica’s machines are capable of and do
manufacture to 0.1mm, and (2) the corresponding results of the responsive analysis performed by
Plaintiffs’ expert Dan Riall. (Dkt. 257, at 3.) Persinger explains that Luxottica does not publish
the results of its machine capability studies; that such information is not intended to be shared
outside of Luxottica; and that Luxottica’s competitors could use the results of these studies
regarding Luxottica’s use of a “specific machine” “to alter and improve their own manufacturing
processes and derive a competitive advantage against Luxottica.” (Persinger Decl., Dkt, 257-2, ¶¶
12–13.) Unlike the information regarding Luxottica’s proprietary manufacturing standards and
tolerances described above, Hummel’s and Riall’s capability results, i.e., the “percentages and
statistics regarding manufacturing to 0.1mm measurements” (id. ¶ 11), do not appear to present a
blueprint from which Luxottica’s competitors might “alter and improve” their manufacturing
processes. It eludes the Court how the mere results of these analyses offer insight that a competitor
might use to gain advantage. This finding is underscored by the fact that Hummel’s capability
study was not conducted to offer LensCrafters insight to alter or improve its own manufacturing
process, but rather, was specifically conducted in response to Riall’s expert report in this litigation.
(Hummel Disclosure, Dkt. 257-1, at ECF 27 ¶¶ 9–15.) Finally, Persinger’s conclusory declaration
does not offer specific facts or examples to address any skepticism the Court might have that
competitors could use these “percentages and statistics” prepared in anticipation of this litigation
to derive a competitive advantage over Luxottica. To overcome the strong presumption of public
access that attaches to this information, LensCrafters “must make a particular and specific
demonstration of fact showing that disclosure would result in an injury sufficiently serious to
warrant protection; broad allegations of harm unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated
reasoning fail to satisfy the test.” Tropical Sails Corp., 2016 WL 1451548, at *3 (quoting In re
Parmalat Sec. Litig., 258 F.R.D. 236, 244 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)); accord Dawson v. Merck & Co., No.
12-CV-1876 (BMC) (PK), 2021 WL 242148, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2021) (collecting cases); T-
Jat Sys. 2006 Ltd. v. Amdocs Software Sys. Ltd., No. 13-CV-5356 (JMF), 2015 WL 394075, at *6
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2015) (denying request to redact because, inter alia, the defendant did “not
explain with sufficient detail why disclosure of its business information would harm its
competitive position”); see Schoolcraft v. City of New York, No. 10-CV-6005 (RWS), 2013 WL
4534913, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2013) (noting that while there is a split among district courts
as to the necessary showing, “the majority of the courts within this district have only used the
specificity requirement when dealing with protective orders seeking to prevent injury to business”
(alterations and citation omitted)). Here, LensCrafters has failed to make a “particular and specific
demonstration of fact showing that disclosure would result in an injury sufficiently serious to
warrant protection,” Tropical Sails Corp., 2016 WL 1451548, at *3, and therefore, has not
overridden the strong presumption of disclosure that attaches to this information. The request to
redact the results of Hummel’s study and the corresponding results of Riall’s analysis is denied.
C. Percentage of In-Store Versus Central Labs Manufacturing
For similar reasons, the Court also denies LensCrafters’ request for limited redactions to
the deposition testimony of Jay McDonald, Director of In-Store Projects at Luxottica, stating the
estimated percentage of LensCrafters’ prescription eyeglasses manufactured in its in-store
laboratories versus Luxottica’s regional, central labs. (Dkt. 257, at 3.) Without reference to any
specific facts or examples, Persinger states that this information is not published or intended to be
shared outside of Luxottica, and that if competitors learned this information, they could use it “to
alter and improve their own manufacturing processes and derive a competitive advantage against
Luxottica.” (Persinger Decl., Dkt, 257-2, ¶¶ 15–16.) However, a party arguing against disclosure
of “confidential business information,” as LensCrafters does, must show “something beyond the
mere fact that the particular datum has not previously been made available to the public” and must
make “some showing that the disclosure of the information in question would cause some harm.”
Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. v. HBO & Co., No. 98-CV-8721(LAK), 2001 WL 225040, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2001); see Dawson, 2021 WL 242148, at *7 (“[A] draft document is not entitled
to sealing simply because it was not previously made public or only meant for internal
consideration.”). Persinger’s conclusory statements do not suffice. The Court is not convinced
that any theoretical harm from the disclosure of this information regarding the approximate
percentage split in manufacturing location overrides the strong presumption in favor of disclosure.
See Tropical Sails Corp., 2016 WL 1451548, at *3; T-Jat Sys. 2006 Ltd., 2015 WL 394075, at *6.
The request to make limited redactions to McDonald’s testimony is denied.
II. LensCrafters’ Strategic Business Communications
Next, LensCrafters seeks to redact in full several emails that it argues contain “confidential
business information related to product development and testing, employee training, customer
experience and sales strategies, advertising and marketing strategies, and marketing claim
support.” (Dkt. 257, at 3–4.) In support of its requests to redact, LensCrafters provides the
declaration of Jason Jones, Director of EyeCare Systems at Luxottica of America, Inc. d/b/a
LensCrafters, who states generally that Luxottica does not make such information public because
“it could be capitalized upon by Luxottica’s competitors, causing harm to Luxottica.” (Jones
Decl., Dkt, 257-3, ¶¶ 1, 7–8.)
The first email, Exhibit 3 to Plaintiffs’ class certification motion, is a 2010 email between
two Luxottica employees. (Ex. A to Jones Decl., Dkt. 257-3, at ECF 6–7.) Jones explains that the
email contains information that is “confidential and proprietary because it relates to LensCrafters’
product development and testing, including discussion of LensCrafters’ measurement error studies
for its AccuFit system as part of its marketing claim support process.” (Jones Decl., Dkt, 257-3,
¶ 3.) The disclosure of this type of information, including “sales training materials, internal
marketing strategies, company marketing plans, and internal emails regarding marketing tests”
may expose a party to competitive injury that is sufficient to overcome the presumption of
disclosure. Tropical Sails Corp., 2016 WL 1451548, at *4; see also GoSMiLE, Inc. v. Dr.
Jonathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C., 769 F. Supp. 2d 630, 649–50 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Moreover,
“[c]onfidential business information dating back even a decade or more may provide valuable
insights into a company’s current business practices that a competitor would seek to exploit.”
Encyclopedia Brown Prods., Ltd. v. Home Box Off., Inc., 26 F. Supp. 2d 606, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
However, “[s]tale business records cannot support the necessary finding of harm, and therefore
‘cannot overcome the public’s strong interest in disclosure.’” Dawson, 2021 WL 242148, at *8
(emphasis added) (quoting Alcon Vision, LLC, 2020 WL 3791865, at *8) (collecting cases).
“While a document’s age is a strong indicator of staleness, a party seeking to keep a document
under seal may nevertheless show that the information is not stale with a particularized showing
of harm from disclosure” that is ongoing. Id. (emphasis added); compare Encyclopedia Brown
Prods., Ltd., 26 F. Supp. 2d at 614 (finding that information dating back to 1991, i.e., seven years
earlier, should be sealed because the defendants “provided specific testimony that, for example,
the cost and profit structures of the defendants, the volume of subscribership and the strategies
employed by [the defendants] have not significantly changed since 1991” (emphasis added)), with
Alcon Vision, LLC, 2020 WL 3791865, at *8 (finding that the plaintiff “has not explained how the
disclosure of information that relates to business strategies that were formulated many years ago
would result in any competitive harm”); In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., 258 F.R.D. at 256 (finding that
the party had “not come forward with specific facts showing that disclosure of the specific fees
that it charged [] for this series of transactions would tend to be damaging now, seven to fourteen
years after the fact” and denying the request to keep such information confidential (emphasis
added)). That the policies, practices, or strategies discussed in years-old documents have been
fully implemented, such that they are known to competitors and the public, counsels against
finding those documents to still be sensitive. See Alcon Vision, LLC, 2020 WL 3791865, at *8.
While Exhibit 3 to Plaintiffs’ class certification motion appears to include information
about the development and testing of the AccuFit system and related marketing, which arguably
constitutes confidential business information, the Court is skeptical that this information remains
sensitive more than a decade since the email was sent and AccuFit, with its attendant marketing
claims, were made public. Jones does not provide specific facts or a particularized explanation of
how this stale information could be capitalized on by Luxottica’s competitors to harm Luxottica
now or in the future, and for that reason, LensCrafters cannot overcome the public’s strong interest
in disclosure. Dawson, 2021 WL 242148, at *8; Alcon Vision, LLC, 2020 WL 3791865, at *8.
This interest is particularly strong here as the email contains information about the basis for
LensCrafters’ marketing claims about AccuFit, which undeniably go to the heart of this class
action lawsuit. For these reasons, LensCrafters’ request to redact in full Exhibit 3 to Plaintiffs’
class certification motion is denied.
The second email that LensCrafters seeks to redact, Exhibit 4 to Plaintiffs’ class
certification motion, is a 2010 email sent by a Luxottica employee to himself regarding “Accu-Fit
Conference Call w/ 7 stores.” (Ex. B. to Jones Decl., Dkt. 257-3, at ECF 9.) According to Jones,
the information in this email is “confidential and proprietary” because it contains “notes reflecting
internal discussions on LensCrafters’ product development and AccuFit pilot testing,
LensCrafters’ employee training, discussions of customer experience and sales strategies, and
specific feedback from store associates.” (Jones Decl., Dkt, 257-3, ¶ 4.) For the same reasons the
Court found that LensCrafters failed to demonstrate that Exhibit 3 should be redacted in full, the
Court also concludes that LensCrafters has not met its burden with respect to Exhibit 4. Jones
does not provide specific facts or a particularized explanation of how this information could be
capitalized on by Luxottica’s competitors more than a decade after AccuFit’s launch to harm
Luxottica. For that reason, LensCrafters cannot overcome the public’s strong interest in
disclosure. Dawson, 2021 WL 242148, at *8; Alcon Vision, LLC, 2020 WL 3791865, at *8. The
public’s interest in this email is especially strong as it contains statements that also go to the heart
of this case, namely whether LensCrafters’ representations amount measurements to 0.1mm were
deceptive.
The third email that LensCrafters seeks to redact, Exhibit 34 to Plaintiffs’ class certification
motion, is a 2014 email communication between Luxottica employees that Jones explains is
“confidential and proprietary because it discusses LensCrafters’ marketing claim support
processes, as well as confidential business information regarding LensCrafters’ advertising
practices.” (Jones Decl., Dkt, 257-3, ¶ 5.) Further, Jones states that the attachment to the email
places the communication “in proper context, and reflects an internal presentation with detailed
information on LensCrafters’ internal measurement error study related to LensCrafters’ AccuFit
system.” (Id.) To start, the email does not discuss, but merely references the existence of a
marketing claim support process, which the Court does not find, in and of itself, to be confidential
or proprietary information. (See Ex. C to Jones Decl., Dkt. 257-3, at ECF 11.) Next, the Court
rejects LensCrafters’ contorted argument that this email should be redacted because Plaintiffs’
misleadingly quote a portion of it without providing the attachment that both, reveals the full
context, and contains a substantial amount of confidential claim support information. (Dkt. 257,
at 4; Jones Decl., Dkt, 257-3, ¶ 5.) The purportedly confidential attachment is not the subject of
LensCrafters’ pending motion, and reference to it, does not sway the Court’s view that the cover
email does not contain sensitive information that should be protected from public disclosure.3
Jones’s declaration offers no specific facts or explanation to the contrary. LensCrafters’ request
to redact in full Exhibit 34 to Plaintiffs’ class certification motion is denied.
3 The Court notes that LensCrafters “reserves the right to seal the confidential attachment
in the future as needed.” (Dkt. 257, at 4 n.2.) This opinion does not address nor decide whether
that attachment should be sealed.
The final email that LensCrafters seeks to redact, Exhibits 35 and 47 to Plaintiffs’ class
certification motion,4 is from 2012 and includes communication between LensCrafters executives.
(Ex. D to Jones Decl., Dkt. 257-3, at ECF 13–14.) According to Jones, this email contains
“confidential business strategy on marketing claim support, and discusses sensitive information
related to litigation between Luxottica’s Australian retailer OPSM and one of its competitors, as
well as product development and marketing claim support strategy related to LensCrafters’
AccuFit system.” (Jones Decl., Dkt, 257-3, ¶ 6.) As with Exhibit 34, Jones adds that the
attachments to the email place the communication “in proper context, and reflect voluminous
internal documentation of LensCrafters’ claim support process with detailed information on
LensCrafters’ internal measurement error study related to LensCrafters’ AccuFit system.” (Id.)
First, for the reasons explained above, the Court rejects LensCrafters’ contorted argument that
purportedly confidential attachments, which are not included with the exhibit nor the subject of its
motion, somehow confer confidentiality on the cover email. Next, to the extent that LensCrafters
references litigation between OPSM and a competitor, it does not invoke any sort of work product
or attorney-client protection (nor does it appear that any such protection applies here). Finally,
while this email contains confidential information about Luxottica’s’ “strategy on marketing claim
support,” as well as its “product development and marketing claim support strategy related to
LensCrafters’ AccuFit system” (Jones Decl., Dkt, 257-3, ¶ 6), the information is more than nine
years old and relates to a product and marketing campaign that have already been implemented.
Alcon Vision, LLC, 2020 WL 3791865, at *8. Jones fails to “show that th[is] information is not
stale with a particularized showing of harm from disclosure.” Dawson, 2021 WL 242148, at *8
4 Exhibits 35 and 47 to Plaintiffs’ class certification motion are the same document. (Dkt.
257, at 4.)
(emphasis added). Rather, he offers general, conclusory statements that do not explain how this
information could be capitalized on by Luxottica’s competitors nearly a decade after the launch of
AccuFit and its attendant marketing campaign. Thus, the Court concludes that LensCrafters cannot
overcome the public’s strong interest in disclosure of this email, which is pronounced because the
email includes information that is highly relevant to the deceptive marketing claims in this class
action lawsuit. (See Ex. D to Jones Decl., Dkt. 257-3, at ECF 13.) LensCrafters’ request to redact
in full Exhibits 35 and 47 to Plaintiffs’ class certification motion is denied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the Court grants in part and denies in part LensCrafters’ motion to
seal. The Court GRANTS LensCrafters’ request to keep its Quality Manufacturing Standards
under seal and to redact specific references to its internal manufacturing tolerances. The Court
DENIES LensCrafters’ request with respect to the results of capability analyses conducted by
Hummel and Riall; deposition testimony regarding the percentage of in-store versus central labs
manufacturing; and Exhibits 3, 4, 34, 35, and 47. The parties are directed to comply with the
Court’s October 27, 2020 Order requiring the parties to file redacted versions of the completed
class certification and Daubert briefing. All redacted versions of the briefing with supporting
material and exhibits must be filed on the public docket by November 19, 2021.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Pamela K. Chen
Pamela K. Chen
United States District Judge
Dated: October 14, 2021
Brooklyn, New York