Yipit LLC d/b/a YipitData v. Emmett
- John Koeltl
- 1:24-cv-07854
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Yipit LLC v. Emmett, Judge Tarnofsky granted Yipit’s application to seal its reply letter and exhibits, restricting access.
Yipit LLC d/b/a YipitData, M Science LLC, the clients and customers whose identities may appear in the documents, and other case participants seeking access to ECF 338.
What happened
In Yipit LLC d/b/a YipitData v. Emmett, Yipit asked to seal a reply letter and nine attached exhibits filed in response to M Science LLC’s opposition letter.
Yipit said one exhibit identified its customers and contained confidential business information. It said another was a deposition transcript marked highly confidential under the protective order, and that the remaining exhibits contained information identifying M Science and Yipit clients.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky granted the application. She directed the Clerk to terminate ECF 337 and seal ECF 338, limiting access to case participants and court personnel.
The detailed version
- Yipit LLC d/b/a YipitData v. Emmett · No. 1:24-cv-07854
- John Koeltl
- Aug. 25, 2025
Request
Yipit LLC d/b/a YipitData submitted a letter motion asking to seal its reply letter and Exhibits A through I, filed in response to M Science LLC’s opposition letter.
Reasons Given for Sealing
Yipit stated that Exhibit A disclosed the identities of its customers, which it considered highly confidential and a trade secret. Yipit said Exhibit B was a deposition transcript designated “Highly Confidential” under the protective order. It also said Exhibits C through I were produced by M Science during discovery and contained information identifying M Science and Yipit clients. Yipit requested that those exhibits be sealed under the protective order’s confidentiality designation.
Order
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky granted the application. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF 337 and seal ECF 338, with access restricted to case participants and court personnel. The order addressed document access and did not decide the underlying dispute described in the filing.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.