Ayrton Capital LLC v. Bitdeer Technologies Group
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-05160
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ayrton Capital v. Bitdeer, Judge Liman granted motions to seal exhibits containing personal and commercially sensitive information.
The parties, non-party investors whose identities appeared in the exhibits, individuals whose personally identifying information appeared there, and persons or entities affected by the confidential transaction terms.
What happened
In Ayrton Capital LLC v. Bitdeer Technologies Group, the parties asked the court to seal exhibits filed with Ayrton Capital’s motion to compel discovery. The requested redactions covered personally identifying information, the identities of investors who were not parties, and confidential transaction terms.
The court explained that the public-access presumption is generally lower for materials filed in discovery disputes than for materials used at trial or in motions seeking to end a case. It found that sealing was appropriate to protect personal information and commercially sensitive information.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the motions to seal and directed the Clerk of Court to close docket entries 48, 50, and 51. He also directed the Clerk to close docket entries 41 and 43 because the order resolved them.
The detailed version
- Ayrton Capital LLC v. Bitdeer Technologies Group · No. 1:24-cv-05160
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 14, 2025
Background The parties moved to redact personally identifying information, the identities of non-party investors, and confidential transaction terms from exhibits filed in connection with Ayrton Capital LLC’s motion to compel discovery. The opinion identifies the motions as docket entries 48, 50, and 51.
Legal standard The court stated that the presumption that court filings should be open to the public is generally lower for filings connected to discovery disputes or motions in limine than for material introduced at trial or filed with motions to dismiss or for summary judgment.
Ruling The court found that sealing was appropriate to protect personally identifying information and commercially sensitive information. The motions to seal were granted. The Clerk of Court was directed to close docket entries 48, 50, and 51, as well as docket entries 41 and 43, which the order resolved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.