In re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset Litigation
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-09236
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset Litigation: Judge Failla granted the B/T Defendants’ request to file limited financial information under seal.
The B/T Defendants, the plaintiffs, and the public’s access to the account and transaction information addressed in the filing request.
What happened
In In re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset Litigation, the B/T Defendants asked to file a redacted opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion to compel and two exhibits under seal. The requested redactions covered account numbers, transaction information, and crypto-account financial records.
The court granted the application and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 343. The opinion does not provide a separate explanation for the court’s ruling beyond granting the application.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla issued the order dated May 1, 2023.
The detailed version
- In re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset Litigation · No. 1:19-cv-09236
- Katherine Failla
- May 1, 2023
Background
The B/T Defendants asked the court for permission to file under seal a redacted version of their opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion to compel, along with Exhibits A and B. They sought to redact account numbers and information about specific transactions. They also asked to file the two exhibits under seal because they contained information about their crypto accounts and financial transactions.
The request letter argued that the information was highly sensitive and that public disclosure could create privacy and security concerns. The letter also stated that the court had previously permitted the plaintiffs to file certain information under seal. These statements appear in the parties’ request; the opinion does not separately make factual findings about the sensitivity or relevance of the information.
Ruling
The court’s order states: “Application GRANTED.” It directed the clerk of court to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 343. The order does not separately state the scope of each redaction or provide additional reasoning.
Effect
The ruling granted the B/T Defendants’ application concerning the proposed redactions and sealed exhibits. The opinion does not state any ruling on the underlying motion to compel.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.