Presidio, Inc. et al v. Driven Acquisition, Inc. et al

Filing 80

ORDER granting 70 Letter Motion to Seal. The request to seal is granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 3/26/2024) (mml)

Honorable Robert W. Lehrburger
February 29, 2024
Page 2

business information and strategies, which, if revealed, may provide valuable insights into a
company’s current business practices that a competitor would seek to exploit”) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted); GoSMiLE, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C., 769 F.
Supp. 2d 630, 649–50 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (granting motion to maintain three exhibits under seal that
“contain highly proprietary material concerning the defendants’ marketing strategies, product
development, costs and budgeting,” explaining that the “privacy interests of the defendants
outweigh the presumption of public access”).
This applies with equal force to information that discloses confidential information
concerning a party’s customers or other business relationships. See, e.g., Iacovacci, 2022 WL
101907, at *2 (granting application to seal in a consolidated Rule 56.1 statement “the names of
Defendant’s past and/or prospective clients, including past and/or prospective investors and
transaction counterparties,” explaining that this was “business information that might harm a
litigant’s competitive standing”) (citing authorities). By way of very recent example, earlier this
year, the Court in Bakemark United States LLC v. Negron, No. 23-CV-2360 (AT)(BCM), 2023
US Dist LEXIS 85002 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2023), granted the plaintiffs’ motion to seal or redact
an exhibit containing “the names of BakeMark’s customers, invoices identifying sensitive
customer information[], and screenshots of the system where BakeMark’s confidential customer
information is stored.” Id. at *1. The Court explained that, consistent with the standards set forth
in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006), “courts in this District
routinely grant sealing requests when they contain ‘sensitive commercial information,’” id. (citing
Julian v. MetLife, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164910, 2021 WL 3887763, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.
31, 2021), leave to appeal denied sub nom. McKinney v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. App.
LEXIS 39696, 2021 WL 7451180 (2d Cir. Dec. 21, 2021); Lexington Furniture Indus., Inc. v.
Lexington Co., AB, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55907, 2021 WL 1143694, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24,
2021)), and determined that the customer-related information at issue qualified as such. Id. at *12.
As the under-seal versions of the Letter Motion and exhibits thereto will show, Plaintiffs
are seeking sealing and redaction only of confidential customer and other business relationship
information, such as the names of customers and partners and project information. Such redactions
have been narrowly tailored in accordance with the Protective Order, such that the vast majority
of these papers would, if this letter motion is granted, not remain redacted on the public docket.
Plaintiffs note that the Court granted a prior application by Plaintiffs to seal substantially similar
or identical information. (See ECF No. 60.)
Pursuant to the Individual Rules, Plaintiffs’ will meet and confer with Defendants’ counsel
regarding the redacted material and proceed accordingly.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant the instant letter motion
for approval to maintain the Letter Motion and certain exhibits thereto under seal and with

2

Honorable Robert W. Lehrburger
February 29, 2024
Page 3

redactions on the public docket, respectfully. We thank the Court for its consideration of this
matter.
Respectfully submitted,

Robert S. Friedman
for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
SMRH:4869-9788-7908.3

cc:

All Counsel of Record

3