Bensky et al v. Indyke et al

Filing 124

ORDER granting 117 Motion to Seal; granting 122 Letter Motion to Seal. Application GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at ECF No. 117 and 122. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Arun Subramanian on 9/23/2024) (vfr)

Case 1:24-cv-01204-AS

Document 122

Filed 09/18/24

Page 1 of 2
www.pbwt.com

Daniel Ruzumna

September 18, 2024

Partner
[phone]
[e-mail]

Application GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is
respectfully directed to terminate the motions at
ECF No. 117 and 122. SO ORDERED.

VIA ECF
The Honorable Arun Subramanian
United States District Judge
500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 15A
New York, New York 10007
Re:

Arun Subramanian, U.S.D.J.
Date: September 23, 2024
Bensky et al. v. Indyke et al., No. 1:24-cv-01204-AS

Dear Judge Subramanian:
Pursuant to Paragraph 11(C)(i) of Your Honor’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases,
we respectfully submit this letter on behalf of Defendants Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn to
explain the need to redact certain categories of information contained in Exhibits B, C, D, E, O, P,
T, U, V, and X1 to the Declaration of Sigrid McCawley in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class
Certification (ECF No. 120), and to seal Exhibit Z attached thereto. The parties met and conferred
by video conference on this issue on September 18, 2024.
Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s proposal to redact the names of individuals
identified in Plaintiff’s letter-motion to seal (see ECF No. 117 at 1), as shown in Exhibits B, E, O,
P, T, V, and X, because Defendants do not yet know who the putative class members in this action
are. In addition, Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants’ proposal to redact the following categories
of personal information:
1. The phone numbers, fax numbers, home addresses and email addresses of
Defendants and nonparties (Exs. B, C, D, O, and P)
2. Bank account numbers (Ex. B)
3. Credit card numbers (Exs. E and X)
Courts routinely grant motions to redact these categories of sensitive information
where “[s]uch information is not at issue in [the] dispute and the individuals have a countervailing
privacy interest in their non-disclosure.” Cohen v. Gerson Lehrman Grp., Inc., 2011 WL 4336679,
at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2011) (granting redaction of “e-mail addresses, home addresses and

1

The parties have agreed that Exhibits H, Q, R, and S need not be filed under seal.

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

1133 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036

T 212.336.2000

F 212.336.2222

Case 1:24-cv-01204-AS

Document 122

Filed 09/18/24

Page 2 of 2

Hon. Arun Subramanian
September 18, 2024
Page 2
phone numbers”); see also Mark v. Gawker Media LLC, 2015 WL 7288641, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.
16, 2015) (privacy interests warrant redaction of “email addresses, telephone numbers, [and] bank
account information”); Signify Holding B.V. v. Fohse Inc., 2024 WL 2030251, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
Apr. 9, 2024) (“[P]rivacy concerns legitimately counsel against disclosure of the parties’ banking
information.”); Doe v. Sarah Lawrence Coll., 2021 WL 197132, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2021)
(ordering redaction of “any personal identifying information from the documents, including …
credit card information [and] home addresses”). The categories of information that Defendants
seek to redact have no relevance to the facts or laws in dispute in this case, and the individuals
whose sensitive personal information is at issue “have a countervailing privacy interest in their
non-disclosure.” Cohen, 2011 WL 4336679, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2011).
Moreover, pursuant to Paragraph 11(a) of Your Honor’s Individual Practices in
Civil Cases, parties are expressly permitted to redact “individual financial information” from
public filings without leave of Court. Defendants therefore propose that Exhibit Z, which consists
entirely of “individual financial information,” remain under seal. Plaintiff nevertheless opposes
filing Exhibit Z under seal and has instead proposed that the parties make line-by-line redactions.
Because this exhibit consists solely of “individual financial information,” line-by-line redactions
would be both inefficient and unnecessary.2
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court permit the
redactions proposed in the exhibits attached hereto, and that Exhibit Z remain under seal.

Respectfully submitted, Sincerely,

Daniel S. Ruzumna
cc: All counsel of record (via ECF)

2

Defendants note that Exhibit Z is not cited by Plaintiff as substantive support for her motion to
certify the putative class, but is instead cited only to support her summary recitation of the
allegations in her Complaint. See ECF No. 119 at 3. Where a supporting document is not at issue
in the specific motion to which it is attached, but is cited only for a “tangential” purpose, “the
public’s interest in the information . . . is not especially strong.” Robinson v. De Niro, 2022 WL
2712827, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2022).