# Opinion

> District Court, S.D. New York · January 7, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11378449

## Case

- **Full name:** Cumulus Media New Holdings Inc. v. The Nielsen Company (US) LLC
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** January 7, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11378449

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
CUMULUS MEDIA NEW HOLDINGS INC., :
:
Plaintiff, :
: 25-CV-08581 (JAV)
-v- :
: ORDER GRANTING
THE NIELSEN COMPANY (US) LLC, : MOTION TO SEAL
:
Defendant. :
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JEANNETTE A. VARGAS, United States District Judge:

On October 29, 2025, Plaintiff Cumulus Media New Holdings Inc. (“Cumulus”) and
Defendant The Nielsen Company (US) LLC (“Nielsen”) appeared before this Court for a
conference on Cumulus’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court preliminarily sealed certain
portions of the conference transcript that included discussion of nonpublic and competitively
sensitive information. On November 26, 2025, Cumulus moved to permanently redact the
provisionally sealed portions of the transcript. ECF No. 81.
Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Cumulus has made a sufficient showing that the
information it seeks to seal, concerning non-public and sensitive financial information regarding
Cumulus and Westwood One’s operations, qualifies as “confidential business information” that is
material to these entities’ competitive position in the market and could potentially inflict
“significant competitive disadvantage” on Cumulus and Westwood One through disclosure.
Standard Inv. Chartered, Inc. v. Fin. Indus. Regul. Auth., Ind., 347 F. App’x 615, 617 (2d Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted). The Court therefore finds that, in this instance, the “interest in
protecting confidential business information outweighs the qualified First Amendment presumption
of public access.” Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006).
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No 81.
SO ORDERED. 4

Dated: January 7, 2026 f LON HAgE ~
New York, New York JEANNETTE A. VARGAS
“United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11378449. Public record. Not legal advice.