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’ unopposed motion to seal materials pending review with the underlying motion.
The plaintiffs, MoneyLion, certain nonparties whose confidential information was involved, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
In Frommer et al. v. MoneyLion Techs. Inc., the plaintiffs asked to file a reply about attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest, along with three exhibits, under seal.
The materials included information about litigation-funder expenses, a law-firm invoice, calculations, and contractual arrangements that the plaintiffs described as confidential and commercially sensitive. Plaintiffs also proposed publicly filing redacted versions, and MoneyLion did not oppose the request.
Judge Jesse M. Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. He stated that the court would decide whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when ruling on the underlying motion, and directed the clerk to terminate ECF No. 258.
The detailed version
- Frommer v. MoneyLion Techs. Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06339
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 20, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs moved for permission to file certain submissions under seal in their litigation against MoneyLion. The submissions were their reply memorandum supporting a request for attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest, plus Exhibits C through E to Nathaniel Ament-Stone’s declaration.
The request relied on a stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order entered on February 9, 2024, as well as the court’s individual practices. The plaintiffs said the materials contained confidential information, including communications about litigation-funder expenses, a law-firm invoice, related calculations, and details about their contractual arrangements with counsel and the litigation funder. They proposed filing public versions with redactions. MoneyLion did not oppose the motion, and the request also concerned confidential material produced by certain nonparties.
Ruling
The court granted the motion to seal temporarily. The court stated that it would assess whether the materials should remain sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 258.
This order did not decide the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees, costs, or prejudgment interest, and it did not finally determine whether the materials would remain sealed or redacted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.