Yipit LLC d/b/a YipitData v. Emmett
- John Koeltl
- 1:24-cv-07854
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Yipit LLC d/b/a YipitData v. Emmett, Judge Koeltl granted Yipit’s motion to seal confidential business information.
Yipit and the investor customer whose identifying information appeared in the filing were directly affected; the public’s access to the filing was limited only as to the confidential portions.
What happened
In Yipit LLC d/b/a YipitData v. Emmett, Yipit asked the Southern District of New York to seal its response to M Science’s request to file an additional brief. Yipit said the response contained competitively sensitive information, including the name and identifying details of an investor customer.
Yipit also said it had publicly filed a version with only the confidential portions redacted, preserving public access to the rest of the filing. The opinion does not describe any dispute about the underlying claims in the case.
Judge Koeltl granted the application to seal. This was a procedural ruling about access to a court filing, not a decision on the parties’ underlying legal claims.
The detailed version
- Yipit LLC d/b/a YipitData v. Emmett · No. 1:24-cv-07854
- John Koeltl
- Apr. 16, 2025
Background
Yipit, LLC, doing business as YipitData, submitted a letter application asking the court to seal its concurrently filed response to M Science’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply. Yipit asserted that the response contained highly confidential and competitively sensitive business information. Specifically, it identified the name and identifying information of one of Yipit’s investor customers.
Request to Seal
Yipit argued that disclosure could harm its competitive standing and the customer’s competitive interests. It relied on the standard for sealing judicial documents described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and cited decisions involving confidential business, customer, product, and pricing information. Yipit also stated that it had publicly filed a version of the response with narrow redactions limited to the confidential information.
Ruling
The court’s order states, “APPLICATION GRANTED,” and is signed by Judge John G. Koeltl. The application to seal was therefore granted. The ruling concerned the confidentiality of a court filing and did not decide the underlying claims or defenses in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.