Ayrton Capital, LLC v. Bitdeer Technologies Group
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-05160
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ayrton Capital v. Bitdeer, Judge Liman granted Bitdeer’s motion to continue sealing limited confidential information and adopted proposed redactions.
Bitdeer Technologies Group, its employees, the non-party investors and contractual counterparties identified in the filings, and members of the public seeking access to the court documents.
What happened
In Ayrton Capital, LLC v. Bitdeer Technologies Group, Bitdeer asked to keep limited portions of exhibits under seal, including employee contact information, non-party identities, and confidential transaction details.
Bitdeer said disclosure could harm employee privacy, non-parties’ confidentiality interests, and its competitive position in future negotiations. The requested redactions covered personal information, investor and counterparty names, transaction amounts and terms, and information about an overseas property.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the motion for continued sealing, adopted the proposed redactions, directed the Clerk to seal Docket Number 156 and its exhibits, and directed the Clerk to close Docket Number 155.
The detailed version
- Ayrton Capital, LLC v. Bitdeer Technologies Group · No. 1:24-cv-05160
- Lewis Liman
- Dec. 4, 2025
Background
Bitdeer moved to maintain under seal limited portions of Exhibits 66, 70, 71, and 72 to the November 26, 2025 declaration of Andrew Gladstein. Bitdeer did not seek continued sealing of the other documents that Ayrton had provisionally sealed with its summary-judgment opposition filings.
Requested Redactions
Bitdeer sought redactions in the exhibits for three general categories of information:
- Non-public phone numbers and home addresses of Bitdeer employees. - The identities of non-party investors and contractual counterparties. - Specific terms of contemplated transactions, including dollar amounts, percentages, interest rates, amortization periods, and Bitdeer’s objectives and strategies in negotiating those terms. Bitdeer also sought to redact non-public information about one of its overseas properties.
Bitdeer argued that the first category implicated employee privacy, the second implicated confidentiality and competitively sensitive investor-relations information, and the third could place Bitdeer at a competitive disadvantage in future negotiations.
Court’s Ruling
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the motion for continued sealing for the reasons stated in the motion. The Court adopted the proposed redactions at Docket Number 157. The Clerk of Court was directed to seal Docket Number 156 and the accompanying exhibits and to close Docket Number 155.
Disposition
The motion for continued sealing was granted. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.