GEM Yield Bahamas Limited v. Mullen Technologies, Inc.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:24-cv-01120
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
GEM Yield Bahamas v. Mullen Technologies: Judge Failla granted Respondents’ motion to seal Exhibit A and restricted access to the parties and court.
Mullen Technologies, Inc. and Mullen Automotive, Inc., whose motion to seal was granted; Petitioners and the court may access the sealed exhibit, while public access to it is restricted.
What happened
In GEM Yield Bahamas Limited v. Mullen Technologies, Inc., Respondents asked to redact email addresses in an exhibit showing that their officers and directors received notice of the Court’s Judgment.
Respondents said the redactions would protect personal identifying information and help prevent harassment. Petitioners opposed the request, although the court noted that Petitioners’ counsel apparently had not reviewed the unredacted exhibit filed under seal.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted Respondents’ letter motion to seal. She directed the Clerk to keep the unredacted exhibit under seal, available only to the parties and the court, and directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion.
The detailed version
- GEM Yield Bahamas Limited v. Mullen Technologies, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-01120
- Katherine Failla
- Feb. 19, 2025
Background
Respondents Mullen Technologies, Inc. and Mullen Automotive, Inc. filed a letter motion seeking permission to redact limited portions of Exhibit A to a filing providing proof that their officers and directors had received notice of the Court’s Judgment. The requested redactions covered the officers’ and directors’ email addresses. Respondents argued that the redactions would protect personal identifying information and prevent unnecessary harassment that could interfere with the officers’ and directors’ duties.
The parties’ filings
The court reviewed Respondents’ letter motion to seal at docket entry 149 and Petitioners’ opposition at docket entry 152. The court noted that Petitioners’ counsel apparently had not reviewed the unredacted version of Exhibit A, which had been filed under seal and was viewable only by the parties and the court at docket entry 150-1.
Ruling
The court granted Respondents’ letter motion to seal. The Clerk of Court was directed to file docket entry 150-1 under seal, with access limited to the parties and the court. The Clerk was also directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 149.
Effect of the order
This order concerns the handling of a court filing. It does not decide the underlying dispute described in the opinion excerpt.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.