Binh Thanh Import Export Production & Trade Joint Stock Co. v. Amazon.com…
Binh Thanh Import Export Production & Trade Joint Stock Co. v. Amazon.com Services LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-00292
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Binh Thanh v. Amazon.com, Judge Schofield denied Gilimex’s sealing application and directed unsealing of two filings.
Gilimex’s request to keep portions of the filings from public view was denied. The court’s direction to unseal Dkt. Nos. 229 and 230 affected public access to those filings.
What happened
In Binh Thanh Import Export Production & Trade Joint Stock Co. v. Amazon.com Services LLC, plaintiff Gilimex asked the court to keep limited portions of a joint pre-hearing order from public view.
Gilimex argued that the material contained competitively sensitive information about its operations and that narrowly tailored redactions were needed to prevent harm. The opinion does not describe the contents of the other filing involved in the court’s order.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the application, directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Dkt. No. 232, and directed the clerk to unseal Dkt. Nos. 229 and 230.
The detailed version
- Binh Thanh Import Export Production & Trade Joint Stock Co. v. Amazon.com… · No. 1:23-cv-00292
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 11, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Gilimex submitted a letter asking the court to maintain under seal limited portions of Amazon’s August 5, 2025 Joint Pre-Hearing Order. Gilimex said the material contained highly sensitive information about its operations that could be used to its detriment. It argued that the potential harm from disclosure outweighed the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible and asked for narrowly tailored redactions rather than complete sealing.
Court’s Action
Judge Schofield endorsed the filing with the statement: “Application DENIED, consistent with Dkt. Nos. 241, 242.” The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Dkt. No. 232 and to unseal Dkt. Nos. 229 and 230. The opinion does not explain the contents of Dkt. Nos. 241 and 242 or provide additional reasoning for the denial beyond that statement.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.