In re Tether and Bitfinex Crypto Asset Litigation
| New York Southern District Court | |
| Judge: | Katherine Polk Failla |
| Case #: | 1:19-cv-09236 |
| Nature of Suit | 370 Torts - Personal Property - Other Fraud |
| Cause | 7:6(b) Federal Commodity Exchange Regulation |
| Case Filed: | Oct 06, 2019 |
| Last checked: Wednesday Apr 06, 2022 10:19 AM EDT |
|
Consolidated Defendant
John Does 1-50
|
|
|
Consolidated Plaintiff
Eric Young
|
Represented By
|
|
Consolidated Plaintiff
Adam Kurtz
|
Represented By
|
|
Consolidated Plaintiff
Bryan Faubus
|
Represented By
|
|
Consolidated Plaintiff
Joseph Ebanks
|
Represented By
|
|
Consolidated Plaintiff
David Crystal
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
BFXNA Inc.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Poloniex, LLC
Corporation Trust Center 1209 Orange Street
Wilmington, DE 19801 |
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Bittrex, Inc.
Corporation Trust Center 1209 Orange Street
Wilmington, DE 19801 |
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Ludovicus Jan van der Velde
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
iFinex Inc.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Tether Operations Limited
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Tether International Limited
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
BFXWW Inc.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Crypto Capital Corp.
|
|
|
Defendant
Giancarlo Devasini
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
DigFinex Inc.
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Reginald Fowler
7100 W. Erie Street
Chandler, AZ 85226 |
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Global Trade Solutions AG
|
|
|
Defendant
Philip G. Potter
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Tether Holdings Limited
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant
Tether Limited
|
Represented By
|
|
Lead Plaintiff
Pinchas Goldshtein
|
Represented By
|
|
Lead Plaintiff
Aaron Leibowitz
|
Represented By
|
|
Lead Plaintiff
Benjamin Leibowitz
|
Represented By
|
|
Lead Plaintiff
David Leibowitz
|
Represented By
|
|
Lead Plaintiff
Jason Leibowitz
|
Represented By
|
|
Lead Plaintiff
Matthew Script
|
Represented By
|
|
Movant
Joseph Ebanks
|
Represented By
|
| Docket last updated: 4 hours ago |
| Monday, April 21, 2025 | ||
| 602 | 602
3
pgs
order
Order on Motion to Seal
Mon 04/21 4:26 PM
ORDER denying without prejudice to renewal599 Motion to Seal. The Court is in receipt of Ms. Sharife's motion to unseal certain court records filed under seal in this case. (Dkt. #599). The Court is also in receipt of Defendants' response in opposition (Dkt. #600), and Plaintiffs' letter confirming that they take no position on this motion (Dkt. #601). For the reasons that follow, Ms. Sharife's motion is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal. The Court has allowed certain materials in this case to be filed under seal after careful consideration, in accordance with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). As explained in this Court's June 26, 2024 Opinion and Order, the Court allowed for these limited redactions in order to protect the personal information of the Anonymous Trader. (Dkt. #561 at 50-54). In so ruling, the Court specifically rejected redactions that would unnecessarily seal allegations that are integral to the theory of market manipulation set forth in the Second Amended Complaint. (Id.). Such an approach is aligned with the rulings of other courts in this District. See, e.g., CRC Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Suh, No. 22 Civ. 9528 (AT) (JW), 2025 WL 560749, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2025) (allowing sealing that was "narrowly tailored to prevent unauthorized dissemination of confidential business information"); Pauwels v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp., No. 19 Civ. 2313 (RA), 2025 WL 41199, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2025) (finding that "countervailing interests overcome the presumption of access and justify sealing"). Ms. Sharife's letter fails to persuade the Court that it should stray for its current approach. Should Ms. Sharife file another motion that more thoroughly engages with the standard set forth in Lugosch, or should Ms. Sharife renew her motion after the Court has ruled on the parties' proposed redactions to the briefing for the motion for class certification, the Court will carefully consider her request. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 599. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 4/21/2025) (jjc) |
|
| 601 | 601
1
pgs
respoth
Response (non-motion)
Mon 04/21 8:48 AM
RESPONSE re:599 LETTER MOTION to Seal addressed to Judge Katherine Polk Failla from Khadija Sharife, Investigative Journalist dated 4/11/2025. . Document filed by Pinchas Goldshtein, Benjamin Leibowitz, Jason Leibowitz, Matthew Script..(Dunlap, Andrew) |
|
| Friday, April 18, 2025 | ||
| 600 | 600
respm
Response in Opposition to Motion
Fri 04/18 6:28 PM
LETTER RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion addressed to Judge Katherine Polk Failla from Elliot Greenfield dated 4/18/2025 re:599 LETTER MOTION to Seal addressed to Judge Katherine Polk Failla from Khadija Sharife, Investigative Journalist dated 4/11/2025. . Document filed by BFXNA Inc., BFXWW Inc., Giancarlo Devasini, DigFinex Inc., Tether Holdings Limited, Tether International Limited, Tether Limited, Tether Operations Limited, iFinex Inc., Ludovicus Jan van der Velde..(Greenfield, Elliot) |
|