Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 21, 2024

Rokt Corp. v. AdsPostX, Inc.

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-02081
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

In Rokt Corp. v. AdsPostX, Judge Rearden granted Defendants’ request to seal specified exhibits and file supplemental materials with redactions.

Who this affects

The ruling affects the Defendants’ ability to file the identified exhibits under seal and supplemental materials with redactions, while preserving Plaintiffs’ ability to challenge confidentiality designations later. It also concerns confidential information attributed to third-party Groupon.

What happened

In Rokt Corp. v. AdsPostX, Inc., Defendants AdsPostX, Inc., Jon Nolz, and Surojit Niyogi asked to seal exhibits and file certain supplemental materials with redactions. The materials related to Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.

Defendants said the materials contained sensitive business information, including market research, marketing and business-development strategies, customer communications, and information designated confidential by Plaintiffs or third parties. Plaintiffs did not oppose sealing materials designated confidential, but reserved the right to challenge those designations later.

Judge Jennifer H. Rearden granted the application. The order allowed the requested exhibits to be filed under seal and the specified supplemental materials to be filed in redacted form; it did not decide the underlying preliminary-injunction dispute.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Rokt Corp. v. AdsPostX, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-02081
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Mar. 21, 2024

Background

Defendants AdsPostX, Inc., Jon Nolz, and Surojit Niyogi asked for permission to file certain materials under seal and to file other materials with redactions. The materials were submitted in connection with Defendants’ further opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

The request covered Exhibits 1–9 and 11–13 to the supplemental declaration of Jon Nolz; Exhibit 4 to the supplemental declaration of Surojit Niyogi; and Exhibits 6, 12, and 13 to the supplemental declaration of Marc J. Rachman. Defendants also requested permission to file the Nolz and Niyogi supplemental declarations and their supplemental memorandum of law in redacted form.

Reasons Given for Sealing

Defendants stated that some exhibits contained AdsPostX’s highly sensitive business information, including market research, marketing and business-development strategies, communications with customers and prospective customers, and communications with strategic partners. AdsPostX had designated those materials “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the parties’ protective order.

Other materials had been designated confidential or highly confidential by Plaintiffs or third parties. The request also concerned a video and a transcript containing information that Plaintiffs asserted was confidential and proprietary, as well as information belonging to third-party Groupon. Defendants said the proposed redactions would conceal confidential business information and information designated confidential under the protective order.

Plaintiffs did not oppose AdsPostX’s request to seal documents designated confidential or highly confidential by AdsPostX, Rokt, or third parties, but reserved the right to challenge those designations after Defendants filed their supplemental submission.

Ruling

The court granted the application. The order therefore permitted the identified exhibits to be filed under seal and the specified declarations and supplemental memorandum to be filed with redactions. The text provided does not state that the court resolved the parties’ underlying dispute over a preliminary injunction or finally determined whether any confidentiality designation was proper.

The order is signed by Jennifer H. Rearden, United States District Judge, and directs the court to terminate the application.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.