Vogel v. TakeOne Network Corp.
- Subramanian
- 1:22-cv-03991
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Vogel v. TakeOne, Plaintiff requested sealing and redactions; Judge Subramanian’s text contains no clear ruling on that request.
Plaintiff Michael Scott Vogel, defendants TakeOne Network Corp. et al., and the public’s access to filings containing alleged confidential business and technical information.
What happened
In Vogel et al. v. TakeOne Network Corp. et al., Plaintiff Michael Scott Vogel asked the court to seal some exhibits and redact portions of filings connected to his opposition to summary judgment and a challenge to expert testimony.
The requested protections concerned alleged trade secrets and confidential technical and business information. The letter also says some materials were submitted under seal or redacted at defendants’ request, and that defendants would separately justify those requests.
The provided text does not clearly state that Judge Arun Subramanian granted or denied any sealing request. It is a letter to Judge Subramanian explaining the requested protections, not a clear ruling.
The detailed version
- Vogel v. TakeOne Network Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-03991
- Subramanian
- Sept. 29, 2025
Nature of the filing
The provided text is a letter from Curtis B. Leitner, representing plaintiff Michael Scott Vogel, to Judge Arun Subramanian. The letter responds to the court’s February 6, 2025 order and the court’s individual practices. It concerns materials filed with Vogel’s opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment and opposition concerning expert testimony.
Requested sealing and redactions
Vogel requested that the court seal Exhibits 5, 45, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 75, and 93 to the Leitner Declaration. He also requested redactions to paragraph 239 of his response to defendants’ statement of undisputed facts and paragraphs 9 and 36 of his counter-statement of undisputed facts.
The letter states that the materials contain trade secrets and confidential or sensitive technical and business information designated as confidential under a stipulated protective order. It describes the exhibits as including product ideas, implementation details, software-design information, slide decks, and a draft advisor agreement concerning Tradekraft’s internal operations and proposed equity structure. The letter argues that the proposed redactions are narrow and would not interfere with public understanding of the case.
Materials submitted at defendants’ request
The letter states that Vogel submitted Exhibits 37, 52, 53, 54, and 89 under seal at defendants’ request. It also identifies portions of Vogel’s response, counter-statement, and several exhibits that were redacted at defendants’ request. The letter says defendants would separately write to the court within three days to justify their sealing requests.
Disposition
The provided text does not clearly state that the court granted, denied, or otherwise ruled on Vogel’s sealing and redaction requests. Accordingly, no disposition of those requests can be identified from the text provided.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.