The opinion
Vulpes Testudo Fund v Shinnick
2025 NY Slip Op 31729(U)
May 10, 2025
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 655825/2024
Judge: Andrea Masley
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/12/2025 12:59 PM INDEX NO. 655825/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/10/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 48
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
VULPES TESTUDO FUND, and VULPES INNOVATIVE INDEX NO. 655825/2024
TECHNOLOGIES INVESTMENT COMPANY PTE LTD,
Plaintiffs, MOTION DATE -
-v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 003
GREGORY DANIEL SHINNICK, MATTHEW GARRITY
O'BRIEN, BLUE OCEAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, RALPH DECISION + ORDER ON
LAYMAN, SANFORD MORHOUSE, and BLUE OCEAN MOTION
MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, LLC,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
HON. ANDREA MASLEY:
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 45, 46, 47, 48, 49,
50, 80, 81, 82, 83
were read on this motion to/for SEAL .
In motion sequence number 003, defendants Gregory Daniel Shinnick and
Matthew Garrity O’Brien move pursuant to the Uniform Rules of the New York State
Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 216.1 to redact the Fourth Amended and Restated
Operating Agreement of defendant Blue Ocean Technologies, LLC (NYSCEF Doc. No.
[NYSCEF] 71).1 The motion is unopposed.
Legal Standard
“Under New York law, there is a broad presumption that the public is entitled to
access to judicial proceedings and court records.” (Mosallem v Berenson, 76 AD3d
1The public version with the movants’ proposed redactions is at NYSCEF 48. The
movants incorrectly designated NYSCEF 48 as “Redacted per 22 NYCRR §202.5(e).”
Uniform Rules of the New York State Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 202.5(e) directs
redactions to certain confidential personal identifiable information, such as social
security numbers, bank accounts and dates of birth; such redactions do not require a
655825/2024 VULPES TESTUDO FUND ET AL vs. GREGORY DANIEL SHINNICK ET AL Page 1 of 4
Motion No. 003
1 of 4
[* 1]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/12/2025 12:59 PM INDEX NO. 655825/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/10/2025
345, 348 [1st Dept 2010] [citations omitted].) The public’s right to access is, however,
not absolute, and under certain circumstances, “public inspection of court records has
been limited by numerous statutes.” (Id. at 349.) One such provision is section 216.1
(a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, which empowers courts to seal documents
upon a written finding of good cause. It provides:
“Except where otherwise provided by statute or rule, a court shall not enter
an order in any action or proceeding sealing the court records, whether in
whole or in part, except upon a written finding of good cause, which shall
specify the grounds thereof. In determining whether good cause has been
shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as of the
parties. Where it appears necessary or desirable, the court may prescribe
appropriate notice and opportunity to be heard.” (Uniform Rules for Trial
Cts [22 NYCRR] § 216.1.)
The “party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstrate
compelling circumstances to justify restricting public access” to the documents.
(Mosallem, 76 AD3d at 349 [citations omitted].) Good cause must “rest on a sound
basis or legitimate need to take judicial action.” (Danco Lab Ltd. v Chemical Works of
Gedeon Richter, Ltd., 274 AD2d 1, 8 [1st Dept 2000] [internal quotation marks omitted].)
Further, in the business context, courts have sealed records where the disclosure
of documents “could threaten a business’s competitive advantage.” (Mosallem, 76
AD3d at 350 [citations omitted].) Records concerning financial information may be
sealed where there has not been a showing of relevant public interest in the disclosure
of that information. (See Dawson v White & Case, 184 AD2d 246, 247 [1st Dept 1992].)
A party “ought not to be required to make their private financial information public ...
where no substantial public interest would be furthered by public access to that
court order. Upon review, NYSCEF 48 contains no redactions authorized by that
statute.
655825/2024 VULPES TESTUDO FUND ET AL vs. GREGORY DANIEL SHINNICK ET AL Page 2 of 4
Motion No. 003
2 of 4
[* 2]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/12/2025 12:59 PM INDEX NO. 655825/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/10/2025
information.” (D’Amour v Ohrenstein & Brown, 17 Misc 3d 1130[A], 2007 NY Slip Op
52207[U], *20 [Sup Ct, NY County 2007] [citations omitted].)
Additionally, courts have recognized a compelling interest in sealing a third-
party’s financial or private information as disclosure could imping upon the privacy rights
of these nonparties. (See Mancheski v Gabelli Group Capital Partners, 39 AD3d 499,
502 [2d Dept 2007]; Natixis Real Estate Capital Tr. 2007-HE2 v Natixis Real Estate
Capital, Inc., 77 Misc 3d 1224[A], 2023 NY Slip Op 50027[U], *2 [Sup Ct, NY County
2023].)
Discussion
The movants seek to redact names, addresses, and email addresses of nonparty
members of Blue Ocean Technologies, LLC, as well as the nonparties’ financial
information in the capitalization tables.
Movants have demonstrated good cause to redact the Fourth Amended and
Restated Operating Agreement as proposed to shield nonparties’ information, including
their financial information, from public disclosure. (See Reveam, Inc. v. Taylor Freres
Capital Markets, LLC, 2024 WL 4216622, *1 [Sup Ct, NY County 2024] [granting motion
redact identities of investors].) The nonparties’ ownership in Blue Ocean Technologies,
LLC is not at issue in this litigation. Additionally, there has been no showing of
substantial public interest in disclosure of such nonparty information.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that this motion is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that the County Clerk, upon service of this order, is directed to seal
NYSCEF 71; and it is further
655825/2024 VULPES TESTUDO FUND ET AL vs. GREGORY DANIEL SHINNICK ET AL Page 3 of 4
Motion No. 003
3 of 4
[* 3]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/12/2025 12:59 PM INDEX NO. 655825/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 102 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/10/2025
ORDERED that the County Clerk shall restrict access to the sealed documents
with access to be granted only to authorized court personnel and designees, the parties
and counsel of record in this action, and any representative of a party or of counsel of
record upon presentation to the County Clerk of written authorization from counsel; and
it is further
ORDERED that movants shall serve a copy of this order on the County Clerk in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse County Clerk
Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the “E-Filing” page on the
court’s website at the address www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh)]; and it is further
ORDERED that if any party seeks to redact identical information in future filings
that the court is permitting to be redacted here, that party shall submit a proposed
sealing order to the court (via SFC-Part48@nycourts.gov and NYSCEF) instead of filing
another seal motion; and it is further
ORDERED that this order does not authorize sealing or redacting for purposes of
trial or other court proceedings on the record, e.g., arguments on motions.
5/10/2025
DATE ANDREA MASLEY, J.S.C.
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
□
X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
□
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
655825/2024 VULPES TESTUDO FUND ET AL vs. GREGORY DANIEL SHINNICK ET AL Page 4 of 4
Motion No. 003
4 of 4
[* 4]