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

Filing 219

ORDER granting 218 Letter Motion to Seal. Application Granted. For the reasons stated at ECF No. 212, the proposed redactions to the 12/02/22 Hearing Transcript are approved. Parties are directed to file the redacted transcript on the docket. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at ECF No. 218. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo on 1/5/2023) (tg)

Case 1:15-cv-00870-VM-VF Document 219
218 Filed 01/05/23
12/29/22 Page 1 of 2
NEW YORK

SHANGHAI

LONDON

ATLANTA

SINGAPORE

BALTIMORE
FIRM and AFFILIATE OFFICES

PHILADELPHIA

WILMINGTON

CHICAGO

MIAMI

WASHINGTON, DC

BOCA RATON

SAN FRANCISCO

PITTSBURGH

BRIAN A. MCALEENAN
DIRECT DIAL: [phone]
E-MAIL: [e-mail]

SILICON VALLEY
SAN DIEGO
LOS ANGELES
BOSTON

NEWARK
LAS VEGAS
CHERRY HILL
LAKE TAHOE

www.duanemorris.com

HOUSTON

MYANMAR

DALLAS
AUSTIN

ALLIANCES IN MEXICO

HANOI

AND SRI LANKA

HO CHI MINH CITY

December 29, 2022
BY ECF
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007-1312
Re:

1-5-2023

For the reasons stated at ECF No. 212, the proposed redactions to the
12/02/22 Hearing Transcript are approved. Parties are directed to file the
redacted transcript on the docket. The Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to close the motion at ECF No. 218.

In re Peerless Networks, Inc. v. AT&T Corp.,
Civil Action No. 15-CV-870 (VM)(VF)

Dear Magistrate Judge Figueredo:
We write on behalf of AT&T Corp., in response to the Court’s Order dated December 8,
2022 (D.E. 215), which directed the parties to submit, by today’s date, any proposed redactions
to the transcript of the December 2, 2022 oral argument before the Court concerning AT&T’s
Motion to Exclude Expert Report and Portions of the Declaration of Peerless Expert James D.
Webber (D.E. 184, 208, 210, “Argument Transcript”). We have consulted with counsel for
Peerless Networks, Inc., and, with counsel’s consent, we respectfully write to jointly request
redactions of certain items from the Argument Transcript pursuant to, and consistent with, prior
Orders entered in this case respecting the confidentiality of materials. (D.E. 28 ¶ 7; D.E. 125 at 2
n.1; D.E. 130; D.E. 212.)
In particular, enclosed herewith is a copy of the Argument Transcript with proposed
redactions of certain words on most pages of the Argument Transcript. The intent of each
proposed redaction is to conceal from the public record certain confidential provisions of the
confidential settlement agreement at issue in these post-judgment proceedings. As previously
reported to the Court, these confidential settlement provisions reflect and embody highlysensitive business data, the disclosure of which to third-party competitors could be detrimental to
the parties’ business. (See, e.g., D.E. 196 at 2.) By contrast, the public can still gain a robust
understanding of the legal issues discussed in the Argument transcript based on the un-redacted
terms.

D UANE M ORRIS LLP
190 SOUTH LASALLE STREET, SUITE 3700

CHICAGO, IL 60603-3433

PHONE: [phone]

FAX: [phone]

Case 1:15-cv-00870-VM-VF Document 219
218 Filed 01/05/23
12/29/22 Page 2 of 2

Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo
December 29, 2022
Page 2
For the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully request that the Court make available
to the public a copy of the enclosed, redacted Argument Transcript or, alternatively, a similar
copy of the Argument Transcript reflecting the same proposed redactions.
We thank the Court for its consideration of this matter and are available to address any
questions the Court might have.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Brian A. McAleenan
Brian A. McAleenan
cc:

Counsel of Record (via ECF)
Carole Ludwig, Court Reporter (via e-mail)