Sjunde Ap-Fonden and The Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. General Electric Company, et al.

Filing 361

ORDER temporarily granting 348 Letter Motion to Seal. The Motion to Seal is granted temporarily. Any opposition to the Motion, however, shall be filed by September 14, 2022. The Court will assess whether to keep the materials at issue sealed or redacted on a permanent basis when decided the underlying motions. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 348. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/7/22) (yv)

Case 1:17-cv-08457-JMF Document 361 Filed 09/07/22 Page 1 of 11
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020-1401
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.lw.com
FIRM / AFFILIATE OFFICES

September 6, 2022
VIA ECF
The Honorable Jesse M. Furman
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Thurgood Marshall Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
Re:

Austin

Milan

Beijing

Munich

Boston

New York

Brussels

Orange County

Century City

Paris

Chicago

Riyadh

Dubai

San Diego

Düsseldorf

San Francisco

Frankfurt

Seoul

Hamburg

Shanghai

Hong Kong

Silicon Valley

Houston

Singapore

London

Tel Aviv

Los Angeles

Tokyo

Madrid

Washington, D.C.

Sjunde AP-Fonden et al. v. Gen. Elec. Co. et al., No. 1:17-cv-8457 (JMF)

Dear Judge Furman:
On behalf of Defendants General Electric Company (“GE”) and Jeffrey S. Bornstein in the
above-referenced action (together, “Defendants”), we write pursuant to Rule 7(C) of the Court’s
Individual Rules and Practices to request that the following materials—filed in connection with
Defendants’ motions to exclude the testimony of S.P. Kothari, to exclude the testimony of Dr.
David I. Tabak, and for summary judgment (together, the “Motions”)—remain under seal or in
redacted form.1
As detailed below, allowing the following exhibits to the Motions, as well as portions of
the Motions themselves, to remain under seal or in redacted form is critical to protecting GE from
the unnecessary disclosure of competitive business information, and revealing this limited amount
of information to the public will not substantially contribute to the public’s understanding of this
case.2 The balance therefore weighs in favor of keeping the following materials under seal or
redacted.3

1

In the interest of judicial economy and to avoid redundancy in their filings, see Dkt. 337 at 3,
Defendants are filing this consolidated letter-motion in connection with all of the Motions.
2

The Court has previously ruled in favor of redacting or sealing similar materials that were
attached to prior filings in this matter. See Ord. (Dkt. 240); Ord. (Dkt. 304); Ord. (Dkt. 319); Ord.
(Dkt. 326).
On September 1, 3, and 5, 2022, pursuant to the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices,
Defendants conferred with Plaintiffs about the proposed redactions and sealing requests. Plaintiffs
withdrew their confidentiality designations to the expert reports of S.P. Kothari, dated March 11,
2022, April 29, 2022, and June 10, 2022, as well as the documents bearing the Bates identifiers
GE_Tabak_0000236 and GE_Tabak_0032036.
3

Case 1:17-cv-08457-JMF Document 361 Filed 09/07/22 Page 2 of 11
September 6, 2022
Page 2

The presumptive public right to access judicial documents is not absolute.4 See, e.g., Nixon
v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598-99 (1978) (explaining that “the decision as to access
is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the
relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case”). Instead, courts consider “whether good
cause exists to overcome the presumption of open access. . . .” Geller v. Branic Int’l Realty Corp.,
212 F.3d 734, 738 (2d Cir. 2000). In doing so, courts must balance “competing considerations,”
including but not limited to “the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency and
the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.” JMG Improvements, Inc. v. Arch Specialty Ins.
Co., 2021 WL 3173022, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2021). Thus, courts permit sealing when it “is
necessary to preserve higher values” and is “narrowly tailored to achieve that aim.” Id.
Protecting sensitive and confidential business information is among the “higher values”
consistently recognized by courts in the Second Circuit as a “legitimate basis to rebut” the
presumption of public access. Hanks v. Voya Ret. Ins. & Annuity Co., 2021 WL 2451981, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2021). Accordingly, courts commonly grant requests to seal or redact
documents to avoid unfairly giving competitors insight into sensitive financial data and operational
information. See City of Providence v. BATS Glob. Mkts., Inc., 2022 WL 539438, at *1-3
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2022) (Furman, J.) (granting request to seal and redact certain documents
containing a company’s revenue data, “peer comparison analyses and information on . . . . market
data strategy, initiatives, and revenue potential . . .”); Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 2021
WL 1222122, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021) (granting request to seal and redact certain
“confidential information about [the company’s] business models . . . sources of revenue and the
amounts of its revenue and sales . . .”); Rubik’s Brand Ltd. v. Flambeau, Inc., 2021 WL 1085338,
at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2021) (granting request to redact documents where they contain
“projected sales, net sales, and revenue” figures); see also Stegmann on Behalf of Covetrus, Inc. v.
Wolin, 2021 WL 1838219, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 7, 2021) (granting request to redact where
disclosures “would enable competitors to discover the company’s confidential business,
operational and marketing strategies,” “disclos[e] the company’s internal analysis of its
competitive standing,” and “provide its competitors with information about which areas [the
company] allocates its resources, as well as its internal financial projections”).
The propriety of protecting confidential business information continues even where the
information relates to past financial performance and analysis, because the information could still
be exploited by a company’s competitors. See, e.g., Encyclopedia Brown Prods., Ltd. v. Home
Box Off., Inc., 26 F. Supp. 2d 606, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (granting request to seal in part and
explaining that “[c]onfidential business information dating back even a decade or more may
provide valuable insights into a company’s current business practices that a competitor would seek
to exploit”); see also Ramirez v. Temin & Co., 2020 WL 6781222, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2020)
(allowing the redaction of certain business information when “public access to this information
could alter the [f]irm’s competitive position in the consulting market”).

4

Unless otherwise indicated, all internal citations and quotations are omitted, emphasis is added,
and citations to “Ex. _” refer to exhibits attached to the Declaration of Blake T. Denton, submitted
concurrently with the Motions.

Case 1:17-cv-08457-JMF Document 361 Filed 09/07/22 Page 3 of 11
September 6, 2022
Page 3

Nor does the fact that confidential business information is filed in connection with motions
to exclude testimony or for summary judgment alter courts’ willingness to protect such
information. See, e.g., JMG Improvements, 2021 WL 3173022, at *3 (redacting summary
judgment filings where “the value in public access is outweighed by the defendant’s interests in
protecting itself from a competitor’s obtaining unfettered access to its processes”); Playtex Prods.,
LLC v. Munchkin, Inc., 2016 WL 1276450, at *11-12 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2016) (redacting portions
of summary judgment brief “referenc[ing] confidential and sensitive business information,
including sales and costs information, presentations, merger discussions, and competitive analyses
and product testing” because the party “would be competitively harmed if they were revealed”);
Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Sunny Merch. Corp., 97 F. Supp. 3d 485, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)
(redacting portions of summary judgment brief and supporting papers where information, “if
revealed, may provide valuable insights into a company’s current business practices that a
competitor would seek to exploit”); Capri Sun GmbH v. Am. Beverage Corp., 2021 WL 3036589,
at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2021) (granting motion to file “summary judgment and Daubert motion
papers and related exhibits under seal and/or with redactions” where information concerned “trade
secrets, confidential research and development information, marketing plans, revenue information,
pricing information, and the like”); W.S.R. By & Through Richardson v. FCA U.S. LLC, 2022 WL
35491, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2022) (granting motion to seal exhibits at summary judgment);
Hanks v. Voya Ret. Ins. & Annuity Co., 2020 WL 5813448, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2020)
(allowing redactions in certain summary judgment exhibits of “specific financial metrics of
[company’s] products and models”).
Defendants’ proposed sealing and redactions concern documents and testimony that
contain GE’s confidential and commercially sensitive information, which would provide
substantive insight into, inter alia, GE’s financial performance, strategies, internal analyses, GE’s
customers, and future operations; or were designated Confidential under the protective order in
this matter at the request of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). See United
States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that law enforcement interests
should be considered in determining whether public access to judicial documents should be
granted). More specifically, Defendants’ proposed sealing and redactions are narrowly tailored to
copies of or quotations from internal company communications and documents that contain
confidential information about GE’s business. This confidential information concerns detailed
financial projections and goals, assessment of financial and operational performance, current and
future business strategies and initiatives, and business models.
Revealing the sealed or redacted information would release GE’s confidential business
information to the public, which would cause injury to GE by providing insight to GE’s
competitors about GE’s goals, strategies, and financial projections. Balancing the harm the
disclosure of this commercially sensitive information would have on GE with its minimal impact
on describing the nature of the case for the public, the narrowly tailored sealing and redactions set
forth below are appropriate.
For the reasons set forth below, Defendants respectfully request that the following
documents—which contain GE’s confidential and sensitive business information, or were

Case 1:17-cv-08457-JMF Document 361 Filed 09/07/22 Page 4 of 11
September 6, 2022
Page 4

designated as confidential by the SEC—remain under seal or in redacted form, and also that certain
references to this information contained in Defendants’ concurrently-filed motions be redacted:

5



Exhibit 11 is an excerpt of internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches
an internal company presentation, which should be sealed because it concerns GE’s internal
business models, as well as commercially sensitive customer information. For these same
reasons, Defendants also request to redact certain references to information contained in
this document in their concurrently-filed statement of material facts in support of their
motion for summary judgment.



Exhibit 12 is an excerpt of internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches
an internal company presentation, which should be sealed because it describes GE’s
internal business models, contractual drivers, and details of GE’s customer portfolios.



Exhibit 13 is an excerpt of internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches
an internal policy document, which should be sealed because it discusses commercially
sensitive customer contract terms with GE’s customers.5 For these same reasons,
Defendants also request to redact certain references to information contained in this
document in their concurrently-filed statement of material facts in support of their motion
for summary judgment.



Exhibit 14 is an excerpt of internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches
an internal company presentation, which should be sealed because it reflects detailed
financial data about GE’s internal business models.



Exhibit 15 is an excerpt of the transcript of a deposition taken in this matter, which should
be redacted because it contains information derived from GE’s confidential documents,
including GE’s internal business models and decisions relating to GE’s factoring programs,
as well as strategic considerations about GE’s financial targets.



Exhibit 16 is an excerpt of the transcript of a deposition taken in this matter, which should
be redacted because it contains information derived from GE’s confidential documents,
including about GE’s financial metrics and internal business initiatives relating to its
factoring programs.



Exhibit 17 is an excerpt of internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches
an internal company presentation, which should be sealed because it discusses GE’s
internal business models and related business strategies.



Exhibit 18 is an excerpt of internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches
an internal company presentation, which should be sealed because it discusses GE’s
negotiating strategies with customers and internal analysis processes and models.

This document was produced with highlighting from the original version of the document, and
the highlighting does not reflect redactions proposed by Defendants.

Case 1:17-cv-08457-JMF Document 361 Filed 09/07/22 Page 5 of 11
September 6, 2022
Page 5

6



Exhibit 20 is an excerpt of internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches
an internal company presentation, which should be sealed because it concerns GE’s internal
assessments for competitive modeling of GE customer contracts.



Exhibit 21 is an excerpt of the transcript of a deposition taken in this matter, which should
be redacted because it contains information derived from GE’s confidential documents,
including about GE’s strategic initiatives and detailed financial metrics relating to GE’s
factoring programs.



Exhibit 22 is an excerpt of internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches
an internal company presentation, which should be sealed because it includes GE’s
financial statistics, performance data, and financial objectives. For these same reasons,
Defendants also request to redact certain references to information contained in this
document in their concurrently-filed statement of material facts in support of their motion
for summary judgment.



Exhibit 23 is an excerpt of the transcript of a deposition taken in this matter, which should
be redacted because it contains information derived from GE’s confidential documents,
including about GE’s financial metrics relating to its factoring programs.



Exhibit 29 is an excerpt of internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches
an internal company presentation, which should be sealed because it reflects GE’s internal
guidance and criteria relating to GE’s factoring programs.



Exhibit 30 is an excerpt of internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches
an internal company presentation, which should be sealed because it includes references to
GE’s competitive contract bidding strategy and detailed guidance about customer
contracts.



Exhibit 31 is an excerpt of the transcript of a deposition taken in this matter, which should
be redacted because it contains information derived from GE’s confidential documents,
including detailed financial analysis and projections about GE, GE’s internal business
models, and financial metrics relating to GE’s factoring programs.



Exhibit 32 is an excerpt of the transcript of a deposition taken in this matter, which should
be redacted because it contains information derived from GE’s confidential documents,
including about GE’s cash conversion goals and key performance indicators relating to
GE’s factoring programs.



Exhibit 33 is an excerpt of the transcript of a deposition taken by the SEC,6 which should
be sealed because it contains information derived from confidential GE documents,
including about internal business strategies, GE’s cash performance, and factoring
programs; and because the SEC allowed production of confidential investigatory material,

This transcript was provided to Defendants in a form that did not contain any index.

Case 1:17-cv-08457-JMF Document 361 Filed 09/07/22 Page 6 of 11
September 6, 2022
Page 6

including this transcript, based on its understanding that a protective order would be in
place.

7



Exhibit 34 is internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches internal
company slides, which should be sealed because it includes GE’s detailed financial
statistics and performance data relating to GE’s factoring programs.



Exhibit 35 is an excerpt of internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches
an internal company memorandum, which should be sealed because it concerns GE’s
internal business models and detailed criteria for GE’s contracts.



Exhibit 36 is an excerpt of the transcript of a deposition taken in this matter, which should
be redacted because it contains information derived from GE’s confidential documents,
including about GE’s factoring programs and financial metrics and targets.



Exhibit 37 is an excerpt of the transcript of a deposition taken in this matter, which should
be redacted because it contains information derived from GE’s confidential documents,
including about GE’s detailed cash strategies, strategic priorities and assessments, and
high-level management discussions about GE’s goals.



Exhibit 38 is an excerpt of the transcript of a deposition taken by the SEC,7 which should
be sealed because it contains information derived from GE’s confidential documents,
including GE’s internal financial strategies and operations; and because the SEC permitted
production of confidential investigatory material, including this transcript, based on its
understanding that a protective order would be in place.



Exhibit 39 is an excerpt of the transcript of a deposition taken in this matter, which should
be redacted because it contains information derived from GE’s confidential documents,
including about GE’s factoring programs, monetization opportunities, cash performance,
and business strategies relating to customer orders and sales.



Exhibit 40 is an excerpt of internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches
an internal company presentation, which should be sealed because it contains detailed
financial data relating to GE’s cash flows and internal strategies.



Exhibit 41 is an excerpt of internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches
an internal company presentation, which should be sealed because it concerns GE’s internal
guidance relating to GE’s factoring program.



Exhibit 43 is a table created by GE, which should be sealed because it contains a detailed
financial analysis relating to GE’s internal factoring programs and contracts with
customers.

This transcript was provided to Defendants in a form that did not contain any index.

Case 1:17-cv-08457-JMF Document 361 Filed 09/07/22 Page 7 of 11
September 6, 2022
Page 7



Exhibit 44 is an excerpt of the transcript of a deposition taken in this matter, which should
be redacted because it contains information derived from GE’s confidential documents,
including about GE’s strategic discussions about factoring and performance goals relating
to cash generation.



Exhibit 45 is an excerpt of internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches
an internal company presentation, which should be sealed because it reflects GE’s
assessments of financial and operational objectives relating to monetization programs.



Exhibit 46 is an excerpt of the transcript of a deposition taken in this matter, which should
be redacted because it contains information derived from GE’s confidential documents,
including about GE’s cash conversion assessments and strategies.



Exhibit 47 is an excerpt of the transcript of a deposition taken by the SEC,8 which should
be sealed because it contains information derived from confidential GE documents,
including detailed discussions and internal guidance about GE’s planning and strategy
processes; and because the SEC allowed production of confidential investigatory material,
including this transcript, based on its understanding that a protective order would be in
place.



Exhibit 48 is an expert report submitted in this matter by Mark A. Sunshine, which should
be redacted because it contains information derived from GE’s confidential documents,
including about GE’s internal business strategies and commercially sensitive customer
contracts.



Exhibit 49 is an excerpt of internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches
an internal company presentation, which should be sealed because it concerns GE’s internal
business strategies and detailed financial metrics relating to monetization initiatives.



Exhibit 52 is an excerpt of internal minutes from a meeting, which should be sealed because
it describes GE management’s discussions relating to GE’s corporate strategies and
initiatives concerning compliance and risk.



Exhibit 53 is an excerpt of internal minutes from meeting, which should be sealed because
it describes GE management’s discussions related to GE’s corporate strategies, detailed
financial statistics, and initiatives concerning revenues and compliance.



Exhibit 55 is internal minutes from a meeting, which should be sealed because it describes
GE management’s discussions of internal corporate strategies and auditing functions.



Exhibit 56 is an excerpt of the transcript of a deposition taken by the SEC,9 which should
be sealed because it contains information derived from GE’s confidential documents,

8

This transcript was provided to Defendants in a form that did not contain any index.

9

This transcript was provided to Defendants in a form that did not contain any index.

Case 1:17-cv-08457-JMF Document 361 Filed 09/07/22 Page 8 of 11
September 6, 2022
Page 8

including GE’s strategies for and analysis of cash performance; and because the SEC
permitted production of confidential investigatory material, including this transcript, based
on its understanding that a protective order would be in place.

10



Exhibit 58 is an excerpt of internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches
an internal company presentation, which should be sealed because it concerns GE’s
performance data, financial drivers, and business strategies relating to monetization
initiatives.



Exhibit 59 is an excerpt of the transcript of a deposition taken by the SEC,10 which should
be sealed because it contains information derived from confidential GE documents,
including detailed discussions and internal guidance about GE’s planning and strategy
processes; and because the SEC allowed production of confidential investigatory material,
including this transcript, based on its understanding that a protective order would be in
place.



Exhibit 67 is an excerpt of internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches
an internal company presentation, which should be sealed because it concerns GE’s
detailed financial statistics relating to GE’s factoring programs.



Exhibit 68 is an excerpt of an internal company presentation, which should be sealed
because it describes GE management’s discussions of corporate strategies and views about
risk exposure.



Exhibit 69 is an excerpt of GE’s representation letter, which should be sealed because it
contains references to GE’s competitive business models and initiatives.



Exhibit 70 is an excerpt of internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches
an internal company presentation, which should be sealed because it reflects GE’s internal
corporate strategies and risk exposure.



Exhibit 71 is an excerpt of an internal company presentation, which should be sealed
because it describes GE management’s discussions relating to GE’s internal corporate
strategies and operational initiatives.



Exhibit 92 is an excerpt of internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches
an internal company presentation, which should be sealed because it discusses GE’s
business strategies and detailed financial projections relating to monetization initiatives.



Exhibit 93 is internal correspondence between GE employees, which should be sealed
because it reflects GE’s internal objectives and projections relating to its deferred
monetization initiatives. For these same reasons, Defendants also request to redact certain
references to information contained in this document in their concurrently-filed

This transcript was provided to Defendants in a form that did not contain any index.

Case 1:17-cv-08457-JMF Document 361 Filed 09/07/22 Page 9 of 11
September 6, 2022
Page 9

memorandum of law in support of their motion to exclude the testimony of Professor S.P.
Kothari.

11
12



Exhibit 94 is internal correspondence between GE employees, which should be sealed
because it concerns discussions of GE’s business strategies and detailed financial metrics
for GE’s factoring programs. For these same reasons, Defendants also request to redact
certain references to information contained in this document in their concurrently-filed
memorandum of law in support of their motion to exclude the testimony of Professor S.P.
Kothari.



Exhibit 95 is an excerpt of internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches
an internal company presentation, which should be sealed because it includes GE’s
financial analyses and data relating to GE’s deferred monetization initiatives. For these
same reasons, Defendants also request to redact certain references to information contained
in this document in their concurrently-filed memorandum of law in support of their motion
to exclude the testimony of Professor S.P. Kothari.



Exhibit 97 is an excerpt of internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches
an internal company presentation, which should be sealed because it reflects internal
assessments of GE’s financial performance.



Exhibit 100 is an excerpt of internal correspondence between GE employees that attaches
an internal company presentation, which should be sealed because it describes detailed
financial metrics and targets relating to GE’s factoring programs and cash flows. For these
same reasons, Defendants also request to redact certain references to information contained
in this document in their concurrently-filed memorandum of law in support of their motion
to exclude the testimony of Dr. David I. Tabak.



Exhibit 106 is an excerpt of the transcript of a deposition taken by the SEC,11 which should
be sealed because it contains information derived from GE’s confidential documents,
including GE’s strategies for and analysis of cash performance; and because the SEC
permitted production of confidential investigatory material, including this transcript, based
on its understanding that a protective order would be in place.



Exhibit 108 is an expert report submitted in this matter by Dr. David I. Tabak. Pursuant to
the Court’s Order dated August 22, 2021, see Order (Dkt. 240), this exhibit should remain
under seal because it contains references to internal discussions pertaining to business
strategy as well as financial metrics relating to GE’s factoring programs from internal GE
documents.12

This transcript was provided to Defendants in a form that did not contain any index.

To the extent that the Court revisits its prior decision, this document should be redacted because
it contains information derived from GE’s confidential documents, including detailed financial
metrics relating to GE’s factoring programs.

Case 1:17-cv-08457-JMF Document 361 Filed 09/07/22 Page 10 of 11
September 6, 2022
Page 10



Exhibit 110 is an expert report submitted in this matter by Professor S.P. Kothari, which
should be redacted because it contains information derived from GE’s confidential
documents, including about GE’s internal business strategies, financial metrics relating to
GE’s factoring programs, and commercially sensitive information about internal business
models and customer strategies.13 For these same reasons, Defendants also request to
redact certain references to information contained in this document in their concurrentlyfiled memorandum of law in support of their motion to exclude the testimony of Professor
S.P. Kothari.



Exhibit 111 is an expert report submitted in this matter by Dr. David I. Tabak, which should
be redacted where it contains information derived from GE’s confidential documents,
including about GE’s internal business strategy and detailed financial metrics relating to
GE’s factoring programs. For these same reasons, Defendants also request to redact certain
references to information contained in this document in their concurrently-filed
memorandum of law in support of their motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. David I.
Tabak.



Exhibit 114 is an expert report submitted in this matter by Christopher J. Russo, which
should be redacted because it contains information derived from GE’s confidential
documents, including about GE’s financial metrics and targets, and sales and revenue
metrics.



Exhibit 115 is an expert report submitted in this matter by Daniel R. Fischel, which should
be redacted because it contains information derived from GE’s confidential documents,
including about GE’s financial performance and targets relating to deferred monetization.



Exhibit 117 is an expert report submitted in this matter by Dr. David I. Tabak, which should
be redacted because it contains information derived from GE’s confidential documents,
including about GE’s financial estimates and targets relating to deferred monetization. For
these same reasons, Defendants also request to redact certain references to information
contained in this document in their concurrently-filed memorandum of law in support of
their motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. David I. Tabak.



Exhibit 118 is an expert report submitted in this matter by Professor S.P. Kothari, which
should be redacted because it contains information derived from GE’s confidential
documents, including about GE’s cash performance, deferred monetization programs, and
detailed financial targets.14 For these same reasons, Defendants also request to redact
certain references to information contained in this document in their concurrently-filed

On September 1, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel withdrew their confidentiality designation to this
document. However, the document still contains references to GE’s sensitive business information
derived from GE’s confidential documents.
13

On September 1, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel withdrew their confidentiality designation to this
document. However, the document still contains references to GE’s sensitive business information
derived from GE’s confidential documents.
14

Case 1:17-cv-08457-JMF Document 361 Filed 09/07/22 Page 11 of 11
September 6, 2022
Page 11

memorandum of law in support of their motion to exclude the testimony of Professor S.P.
Kothari.


Exhibit 119 is an excerpt of the transcript of a deposition taken in this matter, which should
be redacted because it contains information derived from GE’s confidential documents,
including about GE’s financial metrics, targets, and initiatives relating to GE’s factoring
programs. For these same reasons, Defendants also request to redact certain references to
information contained in this document in their concurrently-filed memorandum of law in
support of their motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. David I. Tabak.



Exhibit 120 is an excerpt of the transcript of a deposition taken in this matter, which should
be redacted because it contains information derived from GE’s confidential documents,
including about GE’s revenues and deferred monetization programs. For these same
reasons, Defendants also request to redact certain references to information contained in
this document in their concurrently-filed memorandum of law in support of their motion to
exclude the testimony of Professor S.P. Kothari.
*

*

*

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully submit that keeping the above materials
under seal or in redacted form is consistent with the presumption in favor of public access.
Respectfully submitted,

Blake T. Denton
of Latham & Watkins LLP
cc: All counsel of record (via ECF)
The Motion to Seal is granted temporarily. Any opposition to the Motion,
however, shall be filed by September 14, 2022. The Court will assess
whether to keep the materials at issue sealed or redacted on a permanent
basis when decided the underlying motions. The Clerk of Court is directed
to terminate ECF No. 348.
SO ORDERED.

September 7, 2022