Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 4, 2025

Ayrton Capital, LLC v. Bitdeer Technologies Group

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:24-cv-05160
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureSummary Judgment
In one sentence

In Ayrton Capital v. Bitdeer, Judge Liman granted continued sealing of confidential business and personal information.

Who this affects

Ayrton Capital, Bitdeer Technologies Group, non-party employees whose private information appeared in the filings, and members of the public seeking access to those filings.

What happened

Ayrton Capital, LLC v. Bitdeer Technologies Group involved Ayrton’s request to keep selected portions of Bitdeer’s summary-judgment filings and two exhibits under seal.

Ayrton sought to redact confidential investment and business information, including financial terms, security interests, counterparties, financial performance, and investment strategies. It also sought to redact private information belonging to non-party employees, including personal email addresses, phone numbers, and financial information.

Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the motion for continued sealing, adopted the proposed redactions at Docket No. 152, directed the Clerk to seal Docket No. 153 and its exhibits, and directed the Clerk to close Docket No. 152.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Ayrton Capital, LLC v. Bitdeer Technologies Group · No. 1:24-cv-05160
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Dec. 4, 2025

Background

Ayrton Capital asked the court to continue sealing selected portions of Bitdeer Technologies Group’s opposition to Ayrton’s motion for summary judgment, Bitdeer’s responses to Ayrton’s statement of material facts, and two exhibits filed with a declaration. The requested redactions were identified by green highlighting.

Information at Issue

The first category consisted of confidential commercial information, including information about Ayrton’s investment strategy, potential counterparties, the financial terms and security interest for the transaction contemplated by a term sheet, other transactions, financial performance, and investment strategies. The second category consisted of private information belonging to non-party employees, including personal email addresses, phone numbers, and personal financial information.

Ayrton argued that disclosure of the commercial information could cause competitive harm and that the information had little or no role in deciding the summary-judgment motion. It also argued that the personal information implicated significant privacy interests and had minimal relevance to that decision.

Ruling

The court stated that the motion for continued sealing was GRANTED for the reasons provided above. Judge Lewis J. Liman adopted the proposed redactions at Docket No. 152. The Clerk of Court was directed to seal Docket No. 153 and the accompanying exhibits and to close Docket No. 152. The opinion does not decide the underlying summary-judgment motion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.