Eumori v. Roadget Business Pte. Ltd.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-03531
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Eumori v. Roadget, Judge Caproni granted in part and denied in part without prejudice a request to seal customer and sales data.
The defendants, the plaintiff, customers whose identifying information appears in Exhibit B, and members of the public seeking access to the filing.
What happened
In Atelier Eumori v. Roadget Business Pte. Ltd. et al., the defendants asked to seal Exhibit B supporting their partial summary-judgment motion. They said the exhibit contained sensitive financial information and private customer-identifying information.
The defendants planned to file a redacted public version and a sealed version. The plaintiff consented to the request. The court agreed that customer-identifying information needed protection but found it unclear why the spreadsheet’s other sales data should be withheld.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted in part and denied in part without prejudice the application. She required the defendants by March 12, 2025, either to file a public version redacting only customer names and addresses or to explain in more detail why the other information was sensitive enough to redact.
The detailed version
- Eumori v. Roadget Business Pte. Ltd. · No. 1:24-cv-03531
- Valerie Caproni
- Mar. 10, 2025
Background
The defendants—Roadget Business Pte. Ltd., Shein Distribution Corporation, Shein US Services LLC, Shein Technology LLC, and Fashion Choice Pte. Ltd.—asked to file under seal Exhibit B to a declaration supporting their motion for partial summary judgment. They represented that the exhibit contained highly sensitive financial information and private customer-identifying information. A redacted version was to be filed publicly, and the plaintiff consented to the request.
Court’s Analysis
The court recognized the need to protect identifying information about customers. It did not find the defendants’ explanation sufficient, however, to show why the other sales data in the spreadsheet should be redacted. The order therefore required either a narrower public redaction or a more detailed explanation supporting the requested redactions.
Ruling
The court’s application was “GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” By March 12, 2025, the defendants had to either file a publicly accessible version of Exhibit B redacting only customer names and addresses or submit a letter explaining in greater detail why the other information was sufficiently sensitive to justify redaction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.