Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 8, 2024

Roth v. Armistice Capital, LLC

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:20-cv-08872
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In Roth v. Armistice Capital, Judge Rochon approved narrow redactions and sealing of exhibits containing irrelevant personal phone numbers and an email address.

Who this affects

The order affects the parties filing the two exhibits and the individuals whose personal telephone numbers or email address appear in those documents. It also limits public access to that specific contact information.

What happened

In Roth v. Armistice Capital, the defendants Armistice Capital, Armistice Capital Master Fund Ltd., and Steven J. Boyd, joined by nominal defendant Vaxart, Inc., asked to redact personal contact information from two exhibits and file the documents under seal. The plaintiff's counsel did not object.

The requested redactions covered personal mobile telephone numbers and a personal email address. The request said this information was unrelated to the claims and defenses and would not help the public understand the court's work.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon approved the redactions and sealing because they were limited and the information was not important to the issues before the court.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Roth v. Armistice Capital, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-08872
Judge
Rochon
Date
Aug. 8, 2024

Background

The Armistice Defendants—Armistice Capital, Armistice Capital Master Fund Ltd., and Steven J. Boyd—asked the court to approve redactions to information that plaintiff Andrew E. Roth's counsel intended to file in support of Roth's reply concerning relief from judgment, an indicative ruling, and sanctions. Nominal defendant Vaxart, Inc. joined the request. The request concerned two proposed exhibits and stated that Roth's counsel had no objection.

Requested Redactions

The proposed redactions covered personal mobile telephone numbers and a personal email address. The request stated that this information was not relevant to any claim or defense and would not help the public monitor or understand the judicial process. The request relied on the public-access presumption for court documents and on cases recognizing privacy interests in personal identifying information.

Ruling

The court approved the requested redactions because they were limited and the redacted information was immaterial to the issues before the court. The documents could therefore be filed under seal with the approved redactions. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon signed the order on August 8, 2024.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.