Owen v. Elastos Foundation
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-05462
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Owen v. Elastos Foundation, Judge Moses granted defendants’ application to keep specified documents under seal.
The ruling affected the defendants’ filing of documents, the plaintiffs’ requested redactions, and the privacy interests of non-parties whose identifying or financial information appeared in the exhibits.
What happened
In Owen v. Elastos Foundation, defendants asked the court to approve filing certain documents under seal and with redactions while they sought to deny class certification. The documents included exhibits containing information designated as confidential during discovery.
Defendants sought redactions of non-parties’ personally identifying information, including email addresses and financial account information. Plaintiffs separately requested redactions to several exhibits, and defendants stated that they took no position on those requests.
Judge Barbara Moses granted the application and ordered that the documents filed under seal at docket entry 158 could remain under seal. The order did not provide further details about the specific redactions.
The detailed version
- Owen v. Elastos Foundation · No. 1:19-cv-05462
- Gregory Woods
- Oct. 24, 2022
Background
Defendants submitted a letter motion under the court’s individual rules and a stipulated confidentiality and protective order. They were filing a motion to deny class certification and supporting materials, including exhibits that had been designated confidential during discovery.
Requested Relief
Defendants asked to redact personally identifying information of non-parties, specifically email addresses and financial account information, from six listed exhibits. They also sought approval to redact five other exhibits at plaintiffs’ request. Defendants stated that they took no position on plaintiffs’ requested redactions. The filing planned to include public redacted versions and unredacted versions under seal.
Ruling
The court stated: “Application GRANTED.” It ordered that the documents filed under seal at docket entry 158 could remain under seal. The opinion does not describe any additional ruling on the individual proposed redactions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.