Ayrton Capital LLC v. Bitdeer Technologies Group
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-05160
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Ayrton Capital v. Bitdeer, Judge Liman granted Ayrton’s motion to seal part of an exhibit containing confidential investment information.
Ayrton Capital LLC, whose confidential investment information was kept from public disclosure in the specified portion of Exhibit 17; the public’s access to that portion was limited.
What happened
Ayrton Capital LLC asked the court in Ayrton Capital LLC v. Bitdeer Technologies Group to keep part of an exhibit under seal. The exhibit was attached to a filing supporting Bitdeer’s request to amend its answer, defenses, and counterclaim.
Ayrton said the highlighted portion contained highly confidential information about its investment performance and strategy. It argued that disclosure could harm the company and said its request covered only the portion containing that information.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the motion to seal. The order kept the requested portion of Exhibit 17 under seal but did not seal the other documents provisionally sealed by Bitdeer.
The detailed version
- Ayrton Capital LLC v. Bitdeer Technologies Group · No. 1:24-cv-05160
- Lewis Liman
- May 16, 2025
Background
Ayrton Capital LLC moved to keep part of Exhibit 17, filed as an attachment to the May 8, 2025 Declaration of Michael Carlinsky, under seal. The declaration supported Bitdeer Technologies Group’s reply concerning its motion for leave to amend its answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaim. Ayrton stated that it did not seek to seal any other documents that Bitdeer had provisionally sealed with its reply.
Ayrton’s Position
Ayrton argued that the highlighted portion of Exhibit 17 contained highly confidential information about its investment performance and strategy. It said that disclosure would be detrimental to Ayrton and requested a narrowly limited order covering only the portion that would reveal that information.
Legal Standard and Ruling
The court’s order stated that a sealing decision requires balancing competing interests, including the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure. The court also recognized that courts have discretion to determine whether good cause supports overcoming the presumption that court documents should be publicly accessible. The motion to seal was GRANTED. The order therefore kept the requested portion of Exhibit 17 under seal; the text does not state that any other document was sealed by this ruling.
Disposition
Motion to seal: GRANTED.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.