In re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset Litigation
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-09236
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset Litigation: Judge Failla granted plaintiffs’ request to file amendment materials under seal and ordered a redline by October 30.
Plaintiffs and the proposed class, defendants whose designated information appears in the filings, and members of the public seeking access to those court records.
What happened
In In re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset Litigation, the plaintiffs asked to file their motion for permission to submit a second amended complaint and the proposed complaint under seal. They said the documents contained information designated confidential or attorneys’ eyes only by defendants and information about an anonymous trader covered by an earlier court order.
The plaintiffs also requested permission to file public, redacted versions on November 1, subject to proposed redactions and earlier court orders. The court’s order granted the application, directed the clerk to keep the docket entry under seal for access only by the court and parties, and ordered plaintiffs to provide a redline showing all differences from the prior amended complaint.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla required plaintiffs to file the redline on or before October 30, 2023, and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket number 478. The text provided does not show a ruling on whether the proposed second amended complaint itself may ultimately be filed or accepted.
The detailed version
- In re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset Litigation · No. 1:19-cv-09236
- Katherine Failla
- Oct. 27, 2023
Background
Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted a letter motion seeking permission to file under seal their October 24, 2023 motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint and the proposed complaint attached to that motion. The filing stated that the materials included information defendants had designated as “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the protective order. It also included information concerning an anonymous trader that was subject to an earlier order restricting access.
Plaintiffs took no position, for purposes of that filing, on defendants’ designations. They recognized the strong presumption that court records should be available to the public and asked to file unsealed, redacted versions of the motion and proposed complaint on November 1, 2023, subject to defendants’ proposed redactions and redactions required by earlier court orders.
Ruling
The court granted the application. It directed the clerk to maintain the relevant docket entry under seal, viewable only by the court and the parties. The court also ordered plaintiffs to provide a redline version of their proposed Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint showing all differences from the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed at docket number 114. Plaintiffs were ordered to file that redline on or before October 30, 2023.
The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket number 478. In the opinion text provided, the court did not decide whether plaintiffs would ultimately receive permission to amend the complaint; the ruling addressed the filing under seal and the required redline.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.