Spin Master v. Aomore-US
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-07099
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Spin Master v. Aomore-US, Judge Ho granted defendants’ request to keep an opposition under seal and allow redactions.
The ruling affected the defendants who submitted the opposition, Spin Master, Ltd., and public access to the financial information at issue.
What happened
Spin Master, Ltd. v. Aomore-US et al. concerns defendants’ request to redact financial information from their opposition to Spin Master’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
The information appeared on page 19 of the opposition and had been designated confidential by Spin Master. Defendants said Spin Master publicly reports revenue information but nevertheless asked to file the unredacted opposition under seal.
Judge Dale E. Ho granted the application and granted defendants’ request to maintain ECF No. 152 under seal. The court stated that the redactions were narrowly tailored to interests sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access, directed that a redacted version be available at ECF No. 153, and directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 151.
The detailed version
- Spin Master v. Aomore-US · No. 1:23-cv-07099
- Ho
- Sept. 30, 2025
Background
Defendants Leqiong, Monkki, Onecemore, Yucmed Store, and Chenghai Lucky Boy Toys Co., Ltd. asked to redact specific financial information from page 19 of their opposition to Spin Master, Ltd.’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The letter motion stated that the information had been designated confidential by Spin Master. Defendants also stated that Spin Master publicly reports its revenue information, but they sought to file the unredacted opposition under seal because of Spin Master’s confidentiality designation.
Ruling
The court granted the application. For substantially the reasons in defendants’ letter, Judge Dale E. Ho granted defendants’ request to maintain ECF No. 152 under seal. The court found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to interests sufficient to rebut the presumption of public access. A redacted version was made available on the public docket as ECF No. 153, and the Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 151.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.