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 the joint request to keep ECF No. 150 sealed and ordered a redacted filing.
Spin Master, Ltd. and the defendants who filed the answer and counterclaims are affected by the order. ECF No. 150 remains under seal, and defendants must file a redacted public version within 10 days.
What happened
Spin Master, Ltd. v. Aomore-US et al. concerns a joint request by Spin Master and certain defendants about the public filing of an answer and counterclaims. The dispute centered on Paragraph 61, which Spin Master said summarized information marked for attorneys’ eyes only.
The parties asked the court to keep ECF No. 150 under seal and allow defendants to file a version redacting Paragraph 61. Defendants disputed that the material was confidential but agreed to the requested sealing and redacted filing for purposes of resolving the dispute.
Judge Dale E. Ho granted the request to maintain ECF No. 150 under seal. He found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored and sufficient to overcome the public’s presumptive access to court records, ordered defendants to file the redacted version within 10 days, and directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 158.
The detailed version
- Spin Master v. Aomore-US · No. 1:23-cv-07099
- Ho
- Sept. 30, 2025
Background
Defendants/Counterclaimants Leqiong, Monkki, Onecemore, and Yucmed Store, and defendant Chenghai Lucky Boy Toys Co., Ltd., jointly with Spin Master, Ltd., sought to keep ECF No. 150 under seal. That filing contained defendants’ answer to the first amended complaint and counterclaims. Defendants asked to file a redacted version for public access, with Paragraph 61 redacted.
Spin Master argued that Paragraph 61 summarized two exhibits that it had designated “ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY” under the confidentiality order. The opinion states that the court had previously sealed those exhibits and that the confidentiality order barred disclosure of such information or summaries outside the persons authorized by that order. Defendants disputed that Paragraph 61 contained confidential information, but consented to keeping ECF No. 150 sealed and filing the proposed redacted version.
Court’s analysis
The court noted that labeling a document confidential under a protective order does not, by itself, justify permanently sealing it. The court nevertheless concluded that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored and sufficiently important to overcome the presumption that court records should be publicly accessible. The court cited its earlier sealing order in reaching that conclusion.
Disposition
The application was granted. The parties’ joint request to maintain ECF No. 150 under seal was granted. Defendants were ordered to file the redacted version of their answer and counterclaims within 10 days of the order. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 158. The order addressed sealing and public access to a filing; it did not decide the underlying claims or counterclaims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.