Carlyle Aviation Management Limited et al v. Frontier Airlines, Inc.

Filing 51

ORDER granting 43 Letter Motion to Seal. Granted. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 11/13/2023) (kv)

Milbank
JED M. SCHWARTZ
Pm111er

55 Hudson Yards I New York, NY 10001-2163
T: [phone]
[e-mail] I milbank.com

November 9, 2023

VIAECF
Hon. Paul A. Engelmayer
United States District Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square, Courtroom 1305
New York, New York 10007
Re:

Carlyle Aviation Management Limited, et al. v. Frontier Airlines, Inc.,
No. l:23-cv-04774 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.)

Dear Judge Engelmayer:
We are counsel for Plaintiffs in the above-captioned action. Pursuant to Your Honor's
Individual Practices Rule 4.B.2, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue an order
granting Plaintiffs' letter motion to seal Plaintiffs' proposed supplemental complaint
("Supplemental Complaint"), filed contemporaneously herewith as Exhibit I to the Declaration of
Jed M. Schwartz in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint.
Plaintiffs seek to seal certain information contained in the Supplemental Complaint (the
"Redacted Information"). As set forth in the accompanying Declaration of Jed M. Schwartz in
support of this letter motion, the Redacted Information contains sensitive and confidential business
information regarding business transactions with third parties to sell the aircraft. This Redacted
Information includes the competitive price terms of those transactions, which Defendant's constant
stall tactics and unreasonable demands have prevented from closing, as outlined in the
Supplemental Complaint. If these business transactions are not protected by sealing, the pricing
of the proposed sales will be exposed to the public, hindering Plaintiffs' ability to competitively
sell or refinance the aircraft going forward, which would not only be detrimental to Plaintiffs, but
also to the ongoing arrangement for Defendant to lease and use such aircraft. It is for these very
same reasons that the operative version of the Complaint in this litigation remains sealed and
redacted on the public docket. See ECF No. 1-2; see also Order, ECF No. 11.
Although there is a presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents, the Court
may seal judicial documents if "closure is essential to preserve higher values and [closure] is
MILBANK LLP

NEW YORK I LOS ANGELES I WASHINGTON, D.C, I SAO PAULO I FRANKFURT
LONDON I MUNICH I BEIJING I HONG KONG I SEOUL I SINGAPORE I TOKYO

Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer
Page 2

November 9, 2023

narrowly tailored to serve that interest." Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006)
(quoting In re NY. Times. Co., 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 1987). Here, there would be, at most,
a weak presumption in favor of public access. "The weight to be given the presumption of access
must be governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power
and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal comis." Lugosch, 435
F.3d at 119. On the "continuum from matters that directly affect an adjudication to matters that
come within a court's purview solely to insure their irrelevance," the Redacted Information falls
squarely into the latter category. Id. The Redacted Information is relevant only to the quantum of
damages of Plaintiffs' claims, and does not otherwise concern information dispositive of Plaintiffs'
claims.
The Second Circuit has considered "higher values" justifying sealing to include the
"interest in protecting confidential business information." Standard Inv. Chartered, Inc. v. Fin.
Indus. Regul. Auth., Ind, 347 F. App'x 615,617 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirming district court's sealing
of confidential business information where disclosure would result in "financial harm"); see also
Playtex Prods., LLC v. Munchkin, Inc., 14 Civ. 1308, 2016 WL 1276450, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.
29, 2016) (sealing "confidential and sensitive business information"). Such an interest is present
here. The Redacted Information includes limited portions of the Supplemental Complaint
revealing the price tetms of the sales and purchase agreements with third parties. Schwartz Deel.
13. Sealing these commercially sensitive and confidential terms in a narrowly tailored fashion, as
Plaintiffs propose, is therefore particularly appropriate under the circumstances.
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Court grant Plaintiffs' letter
motion to seal.
Respectfully submitted,

Isl Jed M Schwartz
Jed M. Schwartz
cc:

Counsel of Record (via ECF)

Granted. SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 13, 2023
New York, New York

MILBANK LLP

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER
United States District Judge

NEW YORK I LOS ANGELES I WASHINGTON, D.C. I SAO PAULO I FRANKFURT
LONDON I MUNICH I BEIJING I HONG KONG I SEOUL I SINGAPORE I TOKYO