Adstra, LLC v. Kinesso, LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-02639
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Adstra, LLC v. Kinesso, LLC, Judge Liman ordered the parties to justify continued sealing or identify documents for unsealing.
Adstra, LLC, Kinesso, LLC, and Acxiom, LLC, particularly regarding documents they sought to keep under seal.
What happened
Adstra, LLC v. Kinesso, LLC concerns motions to seal documents filed in connection with motions addressed in an earlier opinion and order. The court had already made some sealed information public.
The court required Adstra, LLC and the defendants, Kinesso, LLC and Acxiom, LLC, to identify which documents they still wanted sealed and which could be made public. For each document they wanted to keep sealed, they also had to explain why other considerations outweighed the public’s presumed right to access court records.
Judge Liman ordered each side to file a letter by March 3, 2025. Documents not identified for continued sealing, or not supported by sufficient reasons, would be unsealed.
The detailed version
- Adstra, LLC v. Kinesso, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-02639
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 21, 2025
Background
The order addressed motions to seal at Dkt. Nos. 87, 99, 113, 115, 139, 157, 180, 189, and 199. Those motions concerned documents filed in connection with motions resolved by the court’s Opinion and Order at Dkt. No. 203. The court stated that it had made some information filed under seal public in that earlier opinion and order.
Order
The court directed Adstra, LLC and the defendants to file letters on the electronic filing system by March 3, 2025. Each side had to identify, by docket number, the documents it sought to keep under seal and, for each document, the countervailing factors—reasons weighing against public access—that allegedly outweighed the presumption of access to judicial documents. Each side also had to identify documents that did not need to remain sealed.
Effect
The court stated that failing to identify a document for continued sealing and provide sufficient countervailing factors would result in unsealing. The order addressed access to court documents and did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.