Anysource, Inc., d/b/a Runlayer v. People Center, Inc., d/b/a Rippling
- Denise Cote
- 1:26-cv-06410
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Anysource v. People Center, Judge Cote received Runlayer’s request to seal a discovery motion, but the provided document shows no court ruling.
Runlayer and Rippling are directly affected by the request; the request also concerns public access to court filings and Rippling’s assertedly confidential technical information.
What happened
In Anysource, Inc., d/b/a Runlayer v. People Center, Inc., d/b/a Rippling, Runlayer asked the court for permission to file under seal a letter motion seeking to compel discovery from Rippling.
Runlayer said the motion discusses technical information about Rippling’s MCP Gateway, including information from documents and deposition testimony that Rippling designated as protected under an interim protective order. Runlayer said it would also file a public version with narrow redactions.
The provided document is Runlayer’s request, not a court order, and does not show whether the request was granted or denied. Judge Denise L. Cote is the judge identified in the filing.
The detailed version
- Anysource, Inc., d/b/a Runlayer v. People Center, Inc., d/b/a Rippling · No. 1:26-cv-06410
- Denise Cote
- Aug. 19, 2026
Document and request
The provided document is a letter from Runlayer’s counsel to Judge Denise L. Cote. Runlayer asks for permission to file under seal a letter motion to compel discovery from Rippling.
Reasons given for sealing
Runlayer states that the discovery motion describes alleged deficiencies in Rippling’s document production and refers to specific documents and deposition testimony produced in the case. According to Runlayer, this material concerns technical aspects of Rippling’s MCP Gateway and was designated as “Protected Material” under the parties’ interim protective order. Runlayer quotes that order as requiring a party seeking to file protected or source-code material to do so under seal.
Runlayer also cites the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible and cases discussing when confidential business, technical, financial, or trade-secret information may justify sealing. It says it is filing a public version of the discovery motion with narrowly drawn redactions.
Disposition
The provided text contains Runlayer’s request and legal argument but no ruling by the court. It therefore does not show whether Judge Cote granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the sealing request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.