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 both sealing motions and ordered other provisionally sealed documents unsealed.
Ayrton Capital LLC and Bitdeer Technologies Group, whose exhibits were sealed or redacted, as well as the public, because other provisionally sealed documents were ordered unsealed.
What happened
Ayrton Capital LLC and Bitdeer Technologies Group asked the court to keep certain exhibits under seal or redact them in connection with a dispute over a protective order.
Ayrton sought to seal part of Exhibit 15, while Bitdeer sought to seal or redact Exhibits 3 through 13. The court said the information involved competitively sensitive business information and personally identifiable information, and that the privacy interests outweighed the public’s interest in access to these filings.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted both motions to seal. He ordered Ayrton to file a revised Exhibit 15, noted that Bitdeer had filed revised versions of Exhibits 3 through 13, directed the clerk to unseal Docket Nos. 89-2 and 91, and closed the two sealing motions.
The detailed version
- Ayrton Capital LLC v. Bitdeer Technologies Group · No. 1:24-cv-05160
- Lewis Liman
- July 1, 2025
Background
Ayrton Capital LLC opposed Bitdeer Technologies Group’s motion for a protective order. Ayrton moved to seal the highlighted portion of Exhibit 15 to its opposition. Bitdeer moved to seal or redact Exhibits 3 through 13 of Ayrton’s opposition.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that filings connected to discovery disputes generally receive a lower presumption of public access than materials introduced at trial or submitted with case-ending motions such as motions to dismiss or for summary judgment. The court found that the proposed redactions were targeted and that the parties’ privacy interests in protecting competitively sensitive business information and personally identifiable information outweighed the public-access presumption.
Ruling
The court granted both motions to seal. Bitdeer had filed updated versions of Exhibits 3 through 13 containing the proposed redactions. The court ordered Ayrton to file an updated Exhibit 15 containing only its proposed redactions.
Bitdeer did not seek to keep other documents that Ayrton had provisionally filed under seal, and the court stated that those documents would be unsealed. Ayrton also had not moved to seal Exhibit 2 to Bitdeer’s motion, which had been provisionally filed under seal; that document would likewise be unsealed. The clerk was directed to unseal Docket Nos. 89-2 and 91 and to close the motions at Docket Nos. 90 and 97.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.