Thales Avionics, Inc. v. L3 Technologies, Inc.

Filing 52

ORDER granting #47 Letter Motion to Seal. Plaintiff's application is GRANTED. The confidential documents (ECF Nos. 48 and 50) shall remain under seal. The Court of the Clerk is respectfully directed to terminate ECF 47. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky on 2/5/2024) (jca)

Plaintiff's application is GRANTED. The confidential documents
(ECF Nos. 48 and 50) shall remain under seal.
The Court of the Clerk is respectfully directed to terminate
ECF 47.
Dated: February 5, 2024
New York, NY

Case 1:24-cv-00112-JGK-RFT Document 47 Filed 02/02/24 Page 2 of 2
Hon. Robyn F. Tarnofsky, p. 2
of May 24, 2023 between Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s parent companies, which in turn provides
that all documents subject to it should be kept “strictly confidential.” ECF No. 12-1 at 1-2.
Finally, the portions of its Reply that Plaintiff moves to redact either describe the
content of Exhibits 1-3, or contain information that Defendant considers confidential and
commercially sensitive (ECF No. 32). Your Honor previously granted Defendant’s application
to redact portions of Defendant’s Opposition that contained similar types of information. ECF
No. 36.
“Established factors and values that can outweigh the presumption of public
access include . . . business secrecy . . . and privacy interests.” Valassis Commc’ns, Inc. v. News
Corp., No. 17-CV-7378 (PKC), 2020 WL 2190708, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2020). Courts have
granted motions to seal commercially sensitive information, which, if disclosed, could cause
competitive harm. See, e.g., Rubik’s Brand Ltd. v. Flambeau, Inc., No. 17-CV-6559 (PGG)
(KHP), 2021 WL 1085338, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2021) (granting motion to seal license
agreements, invoices, and documents relating to marketing strategy); Tropical Sails Corp. v.
Yext, Inc., No. 14 CIV. 7582, 2016 WL 1451548, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2016) (sealing
exhibits that would cause defendant “competitive injury” if disclosed). Cf. United States v.
Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Commercial competitors seeking an advantage
over rivals need not be indulged in the name of monitoring the courts.”).
Plaintiff has no objection to filing any of these documents publicly. However,
given that Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 were produced as highly confidential, Exhibit 3 contains nonpublic financial information about Defendant’s business and is of a type that Defendant
previously maintained to be confidential, and portions of Plaintiff’s Reply refer to those or other
documents that have been filed under seal and information that has been redacted in previous
filings in this action, Plaintiff respectfully asks that Your Honor provisionally grant this Motion
until Defendant has an opportunity to be heard on whether any or all of the Confidential
Documents should be kept under seal.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Your Honor enter an
Order allowing Plaintiff to file the Confidential Documents under seal.
Dated: New York, New York
February 2, 2024
Respectfully submitted,

cc: All Counsel of Record (via ECF)

Mark E. McDonald