Frommer v. MoneyLion Techs. Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-06339
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Frommer v. MoneyLion, Judge Furman temporarily granted plaintiffs’ sealing request while reserving a final decision on public access.
The plaintiffs, MoneyLion, certain non-parties whose materials were included, and members of the public seeking access to the filed documents.
What happened
In Frommer et al. v. MoneyLion Techs. Inc., the plaintiffs asked to file under seal their memorandum supporting a request for attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest, along with a declaration and exhibits. They said the materials contained confidential information about agreements with counsel and a litigation funder, law-firm invoices, and related calculations.
MoneyLion did not oppose the request. The plaintiffs proposed filing redacted versions publicly while sealing the unredacted materials under the case’s confidentiality and protective order.
Judge Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. The court said it would decide whether to keep the materials sealed or allow only redacted versions when ruling on the underlying motion, and directed the clerk to terminate the motion from the docket.
The detailed version
- Frommer v. MoneyLion Techs. Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06339
- Jesse Furman
- Oct. 30, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs filed an unopposed letter-motion asking permission to submit certain materials under seal. The requested materials were: (1) the plaintiffs’ memorandum supporting their motion to fix attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest; and (2) the declaration of Evan S. Borenstein and Exhibits A through W.
The plaintiffs relied on the case’s February 9, 2024 stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order, which permits documents to be designated confidential or attorneys’-eyes-only when they contain specified sensitive personal, financial, commercial, or business information. The plaintiffs said Exhibits A through V included engagement agreements, investment agreements, and law-firm invoices, while Exhibit W contained calculations based on those materials. They sought to protect information about their contractual arrangements with counsel and a litigation funder, as well as the work performed by counsel. They proposed filing redacted versions of the memorandum and declaration publicly.
Court’s ruling
Judge Furman granted the motion to seal temporarily. The court stated that it would assess whether to keep the materials sealed or permit them to remain public in redacted form when deciding the underlying motion. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 243. The order did not make a final determination about continued sealing or public access.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.