Macioce v. Hisense USA Corporation
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:25-cv-01608
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Macioce v. Hisense USA Corporation, Judge Engelmayer authorized redacted filing and sealing, and denied the dismissal motion pending the arbitration decision.
Hisense USA Corporation, Robert Macioce, and members of the public seeking access to the exhibit. The exhibit’s redacted version remains public, while the unredacted version is sealed; the motion to dismiss may be renewed after the court resolves the arbitration motion.
What happened
Macioce v. Hisense USA Corporation involved Hisense’s request to seal an exhibit submitted with its motion to compel arbitration. The exhibit contained a television device identifier and product-improvement logs that Hisense described as confidential technical information.
The court authorized Hisense to file a redacted version publicly and the unredacted version under seal. The court also denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewal after deciding Hisense’s motion to compel arbitration.
Judge Paul Engelmayer entered the order on August 18, 2025, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions listed at Dockets 19 and 41.
The detailed version
- Macioce v. Hisense USA Corporation · No. 1:25-cv-01608
- Paul Engelmayer
- Aug. 18, 2025
Background
Hisense asked the court for permission to seal Exhibit A to the declaration of Jianchun Zhang, which was submitted in connection with Hisense’s motion to compel arbitration. Hisense said the exhibit contained the unique device identifier assigned to Robert Macioce’s television and product-improvement logs derived from proprietary computer code. Hisense argued that public disclosure could give competitors insight into how its televisions operate and cause competitive harm.
Rulings
The court authorized Hisense to file a redacted version of Exhibit A on the public docket and to file the unredacted version under seal. The order also denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewal after the court decides Hisense’s motion to compel arbitration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions pending at Dockets 19 and 41.
Effect
The order addressed access to the exhibit and the timing of the motion to dismiss; it did not decide the merits of the arbitration dispute or the underlying claims. The supplied opinion text does not identify which party filed the motion to dismiss, and part of the signed order is obscured in the source text.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.