Berris v. Choi
- Subramanian
- 1:23-cv-04305
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Ryan Berris v. Sung-Fung Choi, Judge Subramanian granted defendants’ request to file specified exhibits redacted or under seal.
The defendants and Ryan Berris, because the ruling governs public access to specified exhibits submitted in the case; it also affects the court clerk’s handling of the identified filings.
What happened
Ryan Berris v. Sung-Fung Choi concerns defendants’ request to restrict public access to exhibits submitted with the parties’ summary-judgment filings.
The defendants asked to redact or seal documents containing financial information, business plans, marketing and product-development information, personal identifying information, and information about De Tomaso’s ownership and control. They said disclosure could cause competitive, financial, or privacy-related harm.
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the request, but only for the exhibits identified in the defendants’ letter. He also directed the defendants to identify by docket number any other exhibits currently under seal and submit a letter by September 30, 2025, so the court could order those entries unsealed.
The detailed version
- Berris v. Choi · No. 1:23-cv-04305
- Subramanian
- Sept. 17, 2025
Background
The defendants—Norman Choi, De Tomaso Automobili Holdings, N.A. LLC, Samuel Lui, and Genesis Unicorn Capital Corporation—submitted a letter asking to partially redact or keep under seal specified materials filed with their summary-judgment motions, Ryan Berris’s omnibus opposition, and their omnibus reply. The request cited the parties’ protective order, which covered nondisclosed financial information, information about ownership or control of nonpublic companies, business plans, product-development and marketing information, and personal or intimate information.
Requested Restrictions
The defendants requested redactions or sealing for several categories of documents:
- Financial materials, including bank statements and records, financial statements, projections, valuation figures, investment information, forecasts, and audit-related communications. - Business, marketing, and product-development materials, including contract negotiations, communications about a possible special-purpose acquisition company transaction, business strategy, customer communications, marketing initiatives, client information, and automotive developments. - Personal information, including personal identification and phone-account information for Norman Choi and Samuel Lui. - Documents concerning De Tomaso’s ownership and control, including entity-formation communications, corporate-structure information, and related personal or financial materials.
The defendants said they redacted information where possible and sealed documents when redaction would defeat the documents’ purpose. They also stated that certain sensitive information—such as Social Security numbers, dates of birth, financial account numbers, individual financial information, and home addresses—had been redacted under the court’s individual practices without requiring court approval.
Ruling
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the request, but limited the ruling to the exhibits identified in the September 2, 2025 letter. Those exhibits may be filed in redacted form or under seal. The order did not authorize sealing or redaction of unidentified exhibits. It directed the defendants to identify by docket number any exhibits then under seal that were not referenced in the letter and to submit a letter by September 30, 2025, so the court could order those docket entries unsealed. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions at Docket Numbers 181 and 187.
This was an access-to-court-records and filing-restriction ruling, not a decision on the underlying claims or the parties’ summary-judgment motions.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.