Rusis et al v. International Business Machines Corp.

Filing 133

ORDER granting 127 Letter Motion that Plaintiffs' counsel has requested that IBM redact the information relevant to their client, and otherwise consented to the remainder of the redactions. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 8/18/2020) (nb)

Case 1:18-cv-08434-VEC Document 127 Filed 08/14/20 Page 1 of 1
133
08/18/20

250 VESEY STREET • NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10281.1047
TELEPHONE: [phone] • FACSIMILE: +1.212.755.7306

MEMO ENDORSED

August 14, 2020

Direct Number: [phone]
[e-mail]

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 08/18/2020

VIA ECF
The Honorable Valerie E. Caproni
United States District Judge
United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York
Thurgood Marshall Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007

Re: Rusis et al. v. International Business Machines Corp., Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-08434
Dear Judge Caproni:
In connection with IBM’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings as to the ADEA
Claims of Plaintiffs Who Filed Defective Charges or Fall Outside the Temporal Scope of the
Named Plaintiffs’ Administrative Charges, IBM respectfully requests that this Court order
Exhibit F of Alison B. Marshall’s declaration to be filed with limited redactions. Pursuant to
Your Honor’s Individual Practices, the unredacted version of Exhibit F is also being filed under
seal contemporaneously with this letter.
The requested redactions in Exhibit F pertain only to email addresses and phone numbers
of current and former IBM employees. Courts have granted requests to redact such information
in light of the individuals’ privacy interests. See Cohen v. Gerson Lehrman Grp., Inc., 2011 WL
4336679, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2011) (concluding that “individual contact information, such
as e-mail addresses, home addresses and phone numbers” are properly redacted when “[s]uch
information is not at issue in [the] dispute,” because the individuals have a “privacy interest in
their non-disclosure” of this information); see also In re SunEdison, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2019 WL
126069, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2019) (same); Mark v. Gawker Media LLC, 2015 WL 7288641,
at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2015) (same). Plaintiffs’ counsel has requested that IBM redact the
information relevant to their client, and otherwise consented to the remainder of the redactions.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.

SO ORDERED.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Matthew W. Lampe
Matthew W. Lampe
HON. VALERIE CAPRONI
JONES DAY
Attorneys for Defendant UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
AMS TERDAM • ATL ANTA • BEIJING • BOS TO N • BRISBANE • BRUSSEL S • CHICAGO • CLEVEL AND • COLUMBUS • DALL AS • DETROIT
DUBAI • DÜSSELDORF • FRANKFUR T • HONG KONG • HOUS TON • IRVINE • LO NDON • LOS ANGELES • MADRID • MELBOURNE
MEXICO CIT Y • MIAMI • MIL AN • MINNEAPOLIS • MOSCOW • MUNICH • NEW YORK • PARIS • PER TH • PITTSBURGH • SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO • SÃO PAULO • SAUDI ARABIA • SHANGHAI • SILICON VALLEY • SINGAPORE • S YDNEY • TAIPEI • TOKYO • WASHINGTON