Shopnomix v. Monay
- Andrew Carter
- 1:25-cv-08403
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Shopnomix v. Monay, U.S. Magistrate Judge Parker denied Shopnomix’s sealing motion without prejudice because its trade-secret showing was insufficient.
Shopnomix’s request to keep customer names and contact information from public view was denied without prejudice. The documents remain sealed temporarily, subject to a possible renewed motion, and will be unsealed if no renewed motion is filed by July 27, 2026.
What happened
In Shopnomix, LLC v. Monay, LLC, Shopnomix asked to redact customer names and contact information from documents it filed while opposing Monay’s motion to quash a subpoena. The motion to seal was unopposed.
The court said the documents were judicial records presumed open to the public. Shopnomix showed that it had protected the information, but it did not provide enough information to show that the customer information had been developed through substantial effort or expense and was not publicly available.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker denied the motion without prejudice to renewal. The documents will remain sealed while any renewed motion is considered, but they will be unsealed if Shopnomix does not renew its motion by July 27, 2026.
The detailed version
- Shopnomix v. Monay · No. 1:25-cv-08403
- Andrew Carter
- July 20, 2026
Background
Monay, LLC, identified as a nonparty, had moved to quash a subpoena served by Shopnomix, LLC. Shopnomix filed an opposition to that motion with exhibits and then sought to redact customer names and contact information from those exhibits. Shopnomix described the information as confidential business information and alleged that it was part of trade secrets that had been unlawfully taken and shared with third parties, including Monay. The motion to seal was unopposed.
Legal standard
The court explained that the First Amendment and common law create a strong presumption that judicial records are available to the public. Documents submitted with pretrial motions generally qualify as judicial documents. That presumption can be overcome only through specific findings showing that sealing is necessary to protect a higher value and that the sealing is narrowly tailored.
For customer information to be sealed on trade-secret grounds, the party seeking secrecy must provide enough information for the court to find that the information was compiled through substantial effort and expense, that confidentiality measures were used, and that the information is not readily ascertainable from public sources. A confidentiality designation or conclusory statement that information is a trade secret is not enough.
Court’s analysis
Shopnomix did not dispute that the documents were judicial documents subject to the presumption of public access. The court found that the proposed redactions were narrow and that Shopnomix had shown the information was carefully protected. But Shopnomix provided no information indicating that its customer information had been developed through substantial effort or expense, or that the information was not otherwise readily ascertainable.
Disposition
The court denied Shopnomix’s motion to seal without prejudice to renewal. Shopnomix may file a renewed motion by July 27, 2026, explaining specifically why its customers’ identities qualify as trade secrets and should be sealed. The documents will remain under seal while the court resolves any renewed motion. If Shopnomix does not file a renewed motion by that date, the documents will be unsealed. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 40.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.