Peerless Network, Inc. et al v. AT&T Corp.

Filing 212

ORDER granting 151 Letter Motion to Seal; granting 167 Letter Motion to Seal; granting 192 Letter Motion to Seal; granting 196 Letter Motion to Seal.The parties presently have four outstanding motions to seal (ECF Nos. 151, 167, 192, and 196 ) on the docket in this action. Three of the requests are made by Plaintiffs to redact documents (ECF Nos. 151, 192, and 196). The parties also jointly requested redactions to the Court's May 18, 2022 Order (ECF No. 163). Having reviewed the mot ions to seal, Plaintiffs' motions to seal the requested documents and the parties' joint request to redact the Court's May 18, 2022 Order are GRANTED.In the three motions to seal from Plaintiffs, they request to redact: (1) "speci fic terms" of the parties' settlement agreement, including the value of services; and (2) "various confidential aspects of [the parties'] respective businesses," including sensitive technical data, sensitive pricing terms, ne twork capabilities and functions, and Defendant's confidential information of its pricing with other third-party competitors. ECF No. 151 at 1; ECF No. 192 at 1; ECF No. 196 at 1. Similarly, in the parties' joint request to redact the Court 's May 18, 2022 order, the parties' request to redact confidential terms of the settlement agreement, including two specific dollar amounts, which were originally filed on the docket under seal. ECF No. 167 at 1. Courts in this District ro utinely permit parties to seal or redact commercially sensitive information in order to protect confidential business interests and financial information. See, e.g., Rubik's Brand Ltd. v. Flambeau, Inc., No. 17-CV-6559 (PGG) (KHP), 2021 WL 10853 38, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2021); Gracyzk v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., No. 18-CV-6465 (PGG), 2020 WL 1435031, at *8-9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2020) (citing cases).The parties seek to redact commercially sensitive business information, and their inter est in maintaining that information confidential outweighs the public's interest in the sealed material. As such, based on the standard set forth by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006), the motions to seal are GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 151, 167, 192, and 196. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo on 12/2/2022) (rro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------X
PEERLESS NETWORK, INC., et al.,

12/2/2022

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

AT&T CORP.,

15-CV-870 (VM) (VF)

Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------X
VALERIE FIGUEREDO, United States Magistrate Judge
The parties presently have four outstanding motions to seal (ECF Nos. 151, 167, 192, and
196) on the docket in this action. Three of the requests are made by Plaintiffs to redact
documents (ECF Nos. 151, 192, and 196). The parties also jointly requested redactions to the
Court’s May 18, 2022 Order (ECF No. 163). Having reviewed the motions to seal, Plaintiffs’
motions to seal the requested documents and the parties’ joint request to redact the Court’s May
18, 2022 Order are GRANTED.
In the three motions to seal from Plaintiffs, they request to redact: (1) “specific terms” of
the parties’ settlement agreement, including the value of services; and (2) “various confidential
aspects of [the parties’] respective businesses,” including sensitive technical data, sensitive
pricing terms, network capabilities and functions, and Defendant’s confidential information of its
pricing with other third-party competitors. ECF No. 151 at 1; ECF No. 192 at 1; ECF No. 196 at
1. Similarly, in the parties’ joint request to redact the Court’s May 18, 2022 order, the parties’
request to redact confidential terms of the settlement agreement, including two specific dollar
amounts, which were originally filed on the docket under seal. ECF No. 167 at 1.

1

Courts in this District routinely permit parties to seal or redact commercially sensitive
information in order to protect confidential business interests and financial information. See, e.g.,
Rubik’s Brand Ltd. v. Flambeau, Inc., No. 17-CV-6559 (PGG) (KHP), 2021 WL 1085338, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2021); Gracyzk v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., No. 18-CV-6465 (PGG), 2020
WL 1435031, at *8-9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2020) (citing cases).
The parties seek to redact commercially sensitive business information, and their interest
in maintaining that information confidential outweighs the public’s interest in the sealed
material. As such, based on the standard set forth by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid
Co., 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006), the motions to seal are GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is
directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 151, 167, 192, and 196.
Date: December 2, 2022
New York, New York
Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________
VALERIE FIGUEREDO
United States Magistrate Judge

2