Hoar v. Launch Pad Payment Services Corporation and Hotmart BV
Timothy Hoar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Launch Pad Payment Services Corporation and Hotmart BV
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:24-cv-06195
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hoar v. Launch Pad Payment Services Corporation, plaintiffs sought to seal discovery information; Judge McMahon's ruling is not included.
The plaintiffs and proposed class, the defendants, and members of the public seeking access to the court filing could be affected by the requested sealing.
What happened
In Timothy Hoar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Launch Pad Payment Services Corporation and Hotmart BV, the plaintiffs asked to file under seal an unredacted version of an August 14, 2025 letter-motion previously filed in redacted form as ECF No. 63.
The plaintiffs said the letter-motion contains information that a defendant produced during discovery and marked confidential. They cited the requirement to balance the public’s interest in accessing court documents against the privacy interests of the party opposing disclosure.
The provided text is a sealing motion, not a court ruling. It does not show whether Judge Colleen McMahon granted or denied the request.
The detailed version
- Hoar v. Launch Pad Payment Services Corporation and Hotmart BV · No. 1:24-cv-06195
- Colleen McMahon
- Sept. 9, 2025
Nature of the Filing
The provided document is a motion by the plaintiffs to file material under seal. It is not a decision by the court on that motion.
Requested Relief
The plaintiffs asked for permission to file under seal the unredacted version of an August 14, 2025 letter-motion. They stated that the letter-motion had earlier been filed in redacted form as ECF No. 63.
Reason Given
The plaintiffs said the letter-motion contains information produced by a defendant during discovery that the defendant marked as confidential.
Legal Standard Cited
The motion states that a court deciding whether to seal a document must balance the public’s interest in access to judicial documents against the privacy interest of the party resisting disclosure. The motion cites Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2006).
Disposition
The provided text does not contain an order or ruling resolving the request to seal. Accordingly, it does not establish whether Judge Colleen McMahon granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.