Zama Capital Advisors LP, et al. v. Universal Entertainment Corporation, et al.
- Ona Wang
- 1:24-cv-01577
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Zama Capital Advisors LP v. Universal Entertainment Corporation, Judge Wang directed plaintiffs to respond to a sealing motion or face denial as moot.
The order affects the plaintiffs and defendants in the case: defendants must comply with the court’s joint-filing requirement, and plaintiffs must respond to ECF 186 and justify any request to seal ECF Nos. 187 and 188.
What happened
In Zama Capital Advisors LP v. Universal Entertainment Corporation, the court said defendants had filed a motion to seal without joining plaintiffs, contrary to the judge’s filing rules. The motion concerned information that plaintiffs were expected to designate as confidential.
The court directed plaintiffs to respond to the motion, identified as ECF 186, by November 14, 2025. If plaintiffs did not respond, the court said the motion would be denied as moot, meaning the court would not need to decide it. The court also said that any request to seal ECF Nos. 187 and 188 must explain why sealing was justified.
Judge Wang issued the order on November 5, 2025. The order did not itself deny ECF 186; it set a response deadline and described what would happen if plaintiffs did not respond.
The detailed version
- Zama Capital Advisors LP, et al. v. Universal Entertainment Corporation, et al. · No. 1:24-cv-01577
- Ona Wang
- Nov. 5, 2025
Background
The court stated that defendants had not filed ECF 186—a motion to seal based on plaintiffs’ anticipated designation of information as confidential—as a joint motion with plaintiffs. The court said this did not comply with Judge Wang’s Individual Rules and Practices.
Court’s Order
The court directed plaintiffs to respond to ECF 186 by November 14, 2025. It stated that ECF 186 would be denied as moot if plaintiffs did not respond. A denial as moot means the court would not decide the motion because it no longer required a ruling under the circumstances.
The court also stated that, if plaintiffs sought to seal ECF Nos. 187 and 188, they had to explain the reasons for sealing under the standards discussed in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP.
Disposition
Judge Ona T. Wang issued an order setting a response deadline and requirements for any further sealing request. The order did not state that ECF 186 was denied at that time; it said the motion would be denied as moot if plaintiffs failed to respond.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.