Chandler v. International Business Machines Corp.

Filing 21

ORDER granting 19 Letter Motion to Seal. Application granted. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 10/11/2021) (ks)

Case 1:21-cv-06319-JGK Document 19 Filed 10/08/21 Page 1 of 2

250 VESEY STREET • NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10281.1047
TELEPHONE: [phone] • FACSIMILE: +1.212.755.7306
Direct Number: [phone]
[e-mail]

October 8, 2021
Application granted. SO ORDERED.

CM/ECF

The Honorable John G. Koeltl York, NY
New
United States District CourtOctober 11, 2021
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007
Re:

/s/ John G. Koeltl
John G. Koeltl, U.S.D.J.

Chandler v. International Business Machines Corporation, No. 1:21-cv06319-JGK

Dear Judge Koeltl:
Earlier today, Your Honor granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal “except copies of the
documents with the alleged confidential material redacted should be filed in the public docket.”
(Docket No. 18.) At 5:34 pm, we received an email from Plaintiff’s counsel with proposed
redactions of Plaintiff’s 30-page summary judgment motion, 28-page 56.1 statement, and
counsel’s 9-page declaration. Counsel also indicated that she would be publicly filing 10 of the
exhibits to her declaration. She asked Defendant to identify “right away” any additional portions
of the summary judgment motion, 56.1 statement, and declaration for redaction because “we are
planning to file these today.” The email did not seek Defendant’s position on whether the 10
exhibits should be filed publicly.
In light of these circumstances, we move the Court to temporarily maintain under seal
Plaintiff’s summary judgment filing and the various exhibits thereto pending resolution of the
underlying motions. Confidentiality is at the heart of Plaintiff’s claims in this case. Indeed,
Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the confidentiality provision of IBM’s arbitration
agreement is unenforceable. And Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion attaches, describes, and
cites to dozens of documents that are subject to this confidentiality provision. This includes
documents produced by IBM, orders issued by arbitrators, and transcripts of IBM manager
deposition taken in confidential arbitrations. For his part, in attempting to make unilateral
decisions about what should be filed publicly, Plaintiff puts the cart before the horse. It will be
up to the Court to determine – after the briefing schedule agreed to by the parties and adopted by
the Court – whether the confidentiality provision in IBM’s arbitration agreement is enforceable.
Not only that, through his threats of unilateral public filings, Plaintiff seeks to run roughshod

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 • MU NICH • NEW YORK • PARIS • PER TH • PITTSBURGH • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO
SÃO PAULO

•

SAUDI ARABIA

•

SHANGHAI

•

SILICO N VALLEY

•

SINGAPORE

•

S YDNEY

•

TAIPEI

•

TOKYO

•

WASHINGTON

Case 1:21-cv-06319-JGK Document 19 Filed 10/08/21 Page 2 of 2

Hon. John G. Koeltl
October 8, 2021
Page 2
over Your Honor’s meet-and-confer requirements (see Individual Practices Section VI) on
sealing and redaction.
Therefore, we ask the Court to defer any filing in the public record of documents with
confidential information redacted until after the resolution of the underlying summary judgment
motions/motions to dismiss. We further ask that the Court require the parties to meet and confer
on these issues, and submit any disputes to the Court within 14 days after the Court’s rulings on
the underlying summary judgment motions/motions to dismiss. In so doing, we ask that you
adopt the approach of District Judge Furman, who in In re: IBM Arbitration Agreement
Litigation – a consolidated case involving 25 plaintiffs who assert claims similar to those of
Plaintiff here and which is proceeding on an identical summary judgment/motion to dismiss
briefing schedule – ordered the temporarily sealing of plaintiffs’ summary judgment filing
pending resolution of the underlying motion. See In re: IBM Arbitration Agreement Litigation,
No. 1:21-cv-06296 (JMF), at Docket No. 32 (October 8, 2021).
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Matthew W. Lampe
Matthew W. Lampe
cc:

Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.