Atari Interactive, Inc. v. Printify, Inc.
- Sidney Stein
- 1:23-cv-08926
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Atari Interactive v. Printify, Judge Stein received Printify’s request to seal confidential financial and operational information; the text contains no ruling.
Printify, Inc., whose confidential financial and operational information it sought to protect, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
Atari Interactive, Inc. v. Printify, Inc. concerns Printify’s request to keep certain court filings from public view. Printify said the filings contained sensitive information about its finances, operations, and competitive strategy.
The requested sealing covered a memorandum and three declarations supporting Printify’s emergency request to change an order that had frozen most of its liquid assets. Printify said it needed those assets to operate, pay vendors, and pay employees. It did not seek to seal the motion concerning parts of another declaration, and the plaintiff later confirmed it would not seek redactions to that declaration.
The provided text is Printify’s letter motion, not a court decision. Judge Stein’s ruling is not included, so the text does not show whether the request to seal was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Atari Interactive, Inc. v. Printify, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-08926
- Sidney Stein
- Nov. 20, 2023
Nature of the Document
The provided text is a letter motion filed by defendant Printify, Inc., rather than a judicial opinion or order. Printify asked the court to allow certain documents and information to be filed under seal, meaning kept from public access.
Printify’s Request
Printify sought to seal or redact confidential financial information and detailed information about its operations. The request covered:
- An October 26, 2023 memorandum supporting Printify’s emergency motion to modify an October 11 order to show cause concerning a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. - The October 26, 2023 declaration of Anastasija Oleinka. - The October 26, 2023 declaration of Andris Dimants. - The October 26, 2023 declaration of Artis Grizans.
The letter explains that the documents discussed Printify’s financial net worth, liquid assets, operations, financial losses, monetary amounts, and sources of harm allegedly caused by the asset freeze. Printify stated that it originally filed the entire motion and supporting exhibits under seal because the case was then under seal, but its revised request focused on confidential financial and operational information.
Printify did not ask to seal any part of its motion to strike portions of the declaration of Katie Kavanaugh. The letter states that the plaintiff initially wanted to redact parts of that declaration but later confirmed that it would not seek any redactions.
Legal Standard Described in the Letter
The letter describes a three-step test used by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. First, the court determines whether the materials are “judicial documents”—documents relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. Second, the court determines the weight of the public’s common-law right of access to those materials. Third, the court balances that access right against competing concerns, including privacy interests and the protection of confidential business information.
Printify argued that the materials were judicial documents because they supported its request to modify the asset freeze. It also argued that the public could understand the dispute without access to the detailed financial information and that leaving the rest of the filings unredacted would preserve public access to the case.
Disposition
The provided text contains Printify’s request that the court grant the letter motion. It does not contain an order or other ruling by Judge Stein. Accordingly, the text does not establish whether the sealing request was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.