Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.OtherFiled Jan. 31, 2025

Yipit LLC d/b/a YipitData v. Emmett

Judge
John Koeltl
Docket
1:24-cv-07854
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

In Yipit v. Emmett, Yipit asked Judge Koeltl to seal confidential business information; the provided text does not show a court ruling.

Who this affects

Yipit LLC d/b/a YipitData, the defendants named in the preliminary-injunction motion, Yipit’s investor customers whose identities may appear in the documents, and members of the public seeking access to court records.

What happened

Yipit LLC d/b/a YipitData asked the Southern District of New York to seal its motion seeking a preliminary injunction against M Science, LLC, Michael Marrale, and Valentin Roduit. It also asked to seal two exhibits to Taylor Benninger’s declaration.

Yipit said the documents contain confidential information about its products, pricing, data sources, and investor customers. It argued that disclosure could harm its competitive position and that its proposed redactions were limited, while complete sealing of the two exhibits was necessary because confidential and public information were intertwined.

The letter asks the court to grant the sealing request, but the provided text does not include a ruling on that request. Judge John G. Koeltl is the judge identified in the materials.

The detailed version

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

Case
Yipit LLC d/b/a YipitData v. Emmett · No. 1:24-cv-07854
Judge
John Koeltl
Date
Jan. 31, 2025

Background

Yipit LLC d/b/a YipitData submitted a letter motion asking the court to seal Yipit’s concurrently filed motion for a preliminary injunction against M Science, LLC, Michael Marrale, and Valentin Roduit. Yipit also asked to seal exhibits 2 and 3 to the declaration of Taylor Benninger.

Yipit’s position

Yipit stated that the documents contain highly confidential and competitively sensitive business information. According to the letter, the materials disclose specific details about Yipit’s products, pricing, and data sources, as well as the names and identifying information of several investor customers. Yipit argued that public disclosure could provide competitors with exploitable information and harm Yipit’s competitive standing.

Yipit said it had publicly filed a version of its preliminary-injunction motion with limited redactions covering only the confidential information. It requested complete sealing of exhibits 2 and 3 because substantial portions allegedly contain sensitive information and because separating public from nonpublic material would be cumbersome and largely impractical.

Requested relief and disposition

Yipit cited the standard governing access to judicial documents and argued that its commercial confidentiality interests justified sealing. The letter concludes by asking that the motion to seal be granted. The provided text is the party’s request and does not contain an order granting, denying, or otherwise deciding the motion. Judge John G. Koeltl is identified as the presiding judge.

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.