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

Filing 93

ORDER granting 88 Letter Motion to Seal. Granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on 5/8/2024) (mml)

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10112-0015
212.653.8700 main
212.653.8701 fax
www.sheppardmullin.com

May 1, 2024

05/08/2024

Robert Friedman
212.634.3058 direct
[e-mail]

VIA ECF
Honorable Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger
500 Pearl Street, Room 1960
United States Courthouse
New York, NY 10007
[e-mail]
Re:

Presidio, Inc., et al. v. Driven Acquisition, Inc., d/b/a Driven Technologies, et al.,
Case No. 23-cv-6235 (S.D.N.Y.)

Dear Judge Lehrburger:
As Your Honor knows, we represent Plaintiffs Presidio, Inc., Presidio Networked Solutions
LLC, and Presidio Networked Solutions Group, LLC (together, “Plaintiffs” or “Presidio”) in
connection with the above-referenced action and submit this letter-motion pursuant to Section
III.G of Your Honor’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases (“Individual Rules”) and the
Protective Order entered in this action on January 25, 2024 (ECF No. 65) (the “Protective Order”)
to obtain Court approval to:
i.

maintain under seal unredacted versions of Plaintiffs’ forthcoming Memorandum of Law
in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (the
“Memorandum”), and certain exhibits thereto;

ii.

maintain the redacted versions of the Memorandum and certain exhibits thereto that will
be filed on the public ECF docket in redacted form.

Good cause exists for the instant letter motion, as the information in question (which
Plaintiffs have designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the Protective Order) comprises
confidential customer-related information, such as customer and partner names and projects.
Indeed, “Courts in this Circuit regularly seal information that might disclose trade secrets or
confidential business information.” Iacovacci v. Brevet Holdings, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-08048MKV, 2022 WL 101907, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2022); see also Hesse v. SunGard Sys. Int’l, No.
12 CIV. 1990 CM JLC, 2013 WL 174403, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2013) (sealing “emails” that
“include[d] sensitive client information and proprietary business information, including inter alia,
the company’s billing rates and project pricing, as well as details of specific projects completed
for several clients”); Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Sunny Merch. Corp., 97 F. Supp. 3d 485, 511
(S.D.N.Y. 2015) (approving “Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions” that were “limited to specific
business information and strategies, which, if revealed, may provide valuable insights into a

Honorable Robert W. Lehrburger
May 1, 2024
Page 2

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, last 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 Memorandum 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 two prior application by Plaintiffs to seal substantially similar
or identical information. (See ECF No. 60; ECF No. 80.)
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 Memorandum and certain exhibits thereto under seal and with
redactions on the public docket, respectfully. We thank the Court for its consideration of this
matter.
2

Granted.