Shin v. AVA Labs, Inc.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:22-cv-02789
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Shin v. Ava Labs, Judge Failla granted Ava Labs’ application to redact or seal confidential business and compensation information filed with its summary-judgment motion.
Ava Labs and the public’s access to deposition transcripts and an exhibit filed with Ava Labs’ summary-judgment motion.
What happened
In Alexander Shin v. Ava Labs, Inc., Ava Labs asked the court for permission to seal or redact parts of deposition transcripts and one exhibit supporting its motion for summary judgment.
Ava Labs said the materials contained confidential business negotiations, internal analyses, and employee compensation information. It also noted that some employment-history information could be redacted under the judge’s rules without advance approval.
Judge Failla granted the application and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion listed at docket number 51. The text does not identify which specific passages were ultimately sealed or redacted.
The detailed version
- Shin v. AVA Labs, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-02789
- Katherine Failla
- Mar. 27, 2023
Background
Ava Labs submitted a letter asking for permission to file under seal or redact portions of deposition transcripts and one document attached to its motion for summary judgment. The request was made under Rule 9(B)(1) of Judge Failla’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases.
Reasons for the Request
Ava Labs argued that some deposition testimony concerned commercially sensitive negotiations with potential business partners, customers, and other counterparties. It also identified internal business analyses that it said could place the company at a competitive disadvantage if publicly disclosed.
Ava Labs separately sought to seal information about employee compensation, describing it as sensitive financial information concerning third parties. The letter also stated that portions discussing the employment history of deponents and third parties could be redacted under Rule 9(A) without prior court approval.
Ava Labs did not seek to file its legal memorandum or statement of material facts under seal. It represented that it would publicly file versions of the relevant documents with proposed redactions and file unredacted versions under seal, with the proposed redactions highlighted.
Ruling
Judge Failla granted the application. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket number 51. The provided text does not state which particular passages or documents were ultimately sealed or redacted.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.