Frommer v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-06339
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Frommer v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc., Judge Furman temporarily granted a sealing request but required justification for continued confidentiality.
The plaintiffs, MoneyLion Technologies Inc., the other parties and counsel in the case, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
In Frommer v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc., the plaintiffs asked to temporarily file four documents under seal because they contained quotations from MoneyLion’s fact-witness trial affidavits. The plaintiffs said they were making the request only because MoneyLion asked for confidentiality and took no position on whether the materials should remain confidential.
The court temporarily granted the sealing request. It warned that the parties’ agreement to keep documents confidential was not enough to justify sealing court records, which are generally presumed to be publicly accessible.
Judge Furman directed any party seeking continued sealing or redaction to file, within three days, a letter brief of no more than three pages explaining why confidentiality was consistent with public access. The clerk was also directed to terminate ECF No. 150.
The detailed version
- Frommer v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06339
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 8, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs requested permission to file four materials under seal: (1) their response to MoneyLion’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; (2) their memorandum opposing MoneyLion’s motions to exclude proposed experts; (3) Exhibit 6 to the declaration of Nathaniel Ament-Stone; and (4) their evidentiary objections to MoneyLion’s trial affidavits. The plaintiffs said the materials contained quotations from trial affidavits by MoneyLion’s fact witnesses. They made the request at MoneyLion’s request and took no position on whether the materials should remain confidential.
Ruling
The court temporarily granted the motion to seal. It explained that the parties’ agreement to keep a document confidential does not, by itself, justify sealing a “judicial document”—a court filing relevant to the court’s judicial function. The court also referenced the presumption favoring public access to judicial documents.
The court ordered that any party seeking to keep the materials sealed or redacted must file a letter brief within three days, limited to three pages, showing that continued sealing or redaction is consistent with the presumption of public access. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 150. The order did not make a final determination that the materials should remain sealed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.