Elder Technologies, Inc. v. Visone
- Vyskocil
- 1:25-cv-06165
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Elder Technologies v. Visone, Judge Vyskocil temporarily granted redaction, denied other filing requests, and denied an attempt to revise evidence.
Elder Technologies, Inc., Julie Visone, Inspiren, Inc., and the nonparties whose names were temporarily redacted.
What happened
Elder Technologies, Inc. v. Visone concerned letters about the parties’ submissions supporting Elder Technologies’ request for emergency relief.
Elder Technologies asked to redact the names of certain nonparties. It also asked the court to strike the defendants’ objections to a supplemental declaration. The defendants asked to submit a computer-forensics expert’s declaration, and Elder Technologies tried to file a revised version of its supplemental declaration after the evidence deadline.
Judge Vyskocil temporarily granted the request to redact the nonparties’ names, denied the request to strike the defendants’ objections, denied the defendants’ request for the expert declaration as moot, and denied Elder Technologies’ attempt to file the revised declaration. The court also asked the Clerk to terminate the docket entry for the redaction request.
The detailed version
- Elder Technologies, Inc. v. Visone · No. 1:25-cv-06165
- Vyskocil
- Aug. 20, 2025
Background
The court considered several letters concerning submissions connected to Elder Technologies, Inc.’s application for emergency relief. The order addressed the handling of names, objections to evidence, and proposed additional or revised evidence. It did not decide the underlying application for emergency relief.
Rulings
Redaction request
The court temporarily granted Elder Technologies’ request to redact the names of certain nonparties whose names had not already appeared in earlier filings. The court warned that the information might not remain sealed at later stages of the case. The Clerk of Court was asked to terminate docket entry 37.
Objections to the supplemental declaration
The court denied Elder Technologies’ request to strike the defendants’ objections to the Supplemental Declaration of Udit Raj Mehra. The court explained that, although it was not strictly required to apply the Federal Rules of Evidence when deciding whether to award preliminary injunctive relief, a party was still entitled to object to evidence.
Proposed expert declaration
The court denied as moot the defendants’ request to file a declaration from a computer-forensics expert. Elder Technologies had admitted that Mehra’s statement that Julie Visone remotely “wiped” her Sage-issued laptop was false or, at minimum, may have been unfounded.
Revised declaration
The court also denied Elder Technologies’ attempt to file a revised version of Mehra’s supplemental declaration after the deadline for submitting evidence. The court found that the filing violated its earlier order barring additional evidence after the parties’ deadlines without court permission based on good cause. The court also found that simply removing the false or unfounded accusation was an improper attempt to repair the witness’s earlier submission.
Disposition
The order temporarily granted the redaction request, denied the request to strike the defendants’ objections, denied as moot the defendants’ request to file the expert declaration, and denied the attempt to file the revised supplemental declaration.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.