Hoar v. Launch Pad Payment Services Corporation et al.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:24-cv-06195
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hoar v. Launch Pad Payment Services Corporation, Judge McMahon received defendants’ request to keep account and Tax ID numbers sealed; the text shows no ruling.
Launch Pad Payment Services Corporation and Hotmart BV, whose account number and Tax ID the defendants seek to keep redacted, as well as the public’s access to that information.
What happened
Hoar v. Launch Pad Payment Services Corporation concerns a letter from defendants Launch Pad Payment Services Corporation and Hotmart BV asking that limited financial information remain confidential. The information was an account number and Tax ID shown in a filing.
The defendants asked that the unredacted filing stay under seal and that those two numbers remain covered in the public version. They argued that the filing was less important to the court’s work than a motion deciding the case, and that public disclosure would provide no useful value. The letter says the plaintiffs did not object.
The provided text is a defendants’ submission to Judge Colleen McMahon, not a court ruling. It does not show whether Judge McMahon granted or denied the request.
The detailed version
- Hoar v. Launch Pad Payment Services Corporation et al. · No. 1:24-cv-06195
- Colleen McMahon
- Sept. 17, 2025
Nature of the document
The provided text is a September 16, 2025 letter from counsel for defendants Launch Pad Payment Services Corporation and Hotmart BV to Judge Colleen McMahon. It responds to the judge’s September 9, 2025 order and asks the court to maintain limited information under seal. The text does not contain a court ruling or disposition.
Requested redactions
The defendants identify an image labeled HOTMART_0000778 in the plaintiffs’ August 14, 2025 letter motion. They state that the image contains confidential financial information: the defendants’ account number and Tax ID. They ask that the unredacted version remain under seal and that those two numbers remain redacted in the public version.
The defendants say earlier redactions covered three images in their entirety and two additional sentences, but they now seek continued redaction only of the account number and Tax ID. The letter states that the plaintiffs do not object to this request.
Defendants’ legal argument
The defendants rely on the access-to-court-records framework from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. They argue that although the letter motion is a judicial document, it has less importance to the judicial process than a motion that decides the case. They further argue that there is no public value in revealing an account number or Tax ID and that privacy concerns justify the limited redactions.
What the court did
The provided text does not state that Judge Colleen McMahon granted, denied, or otherwise ruled on the sealing request. It records only the defendants’ request and supporting argument.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.