Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Nelson et al

Filing 67

ORDER temporarily granting 61 Letter Motion to Seal The motion to seal is granted temporarily. The Court will assess whether to keep the materials at issue sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 61. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Arun Subramanian on 9/24/2024) (jca)

Case 1:24-cv-02425-AS

Document 61

Filed 09/23/24

Page 1 of 2

1301 Avenue of the Americas
21st Floor
New York, New York 10019
Tel: [phone]
www.sgrlaw.com

The motion to seal is granted
temporarily. The Court will assess
whether to keep the materials at
September 23, 2024 issue sealed or redacted when
deciding the underlying motion.

David A. Pellegrino
Direct Tel: [phone]
Direct Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

The Clerk of Court is directed to
terminate ECF No. 61.

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

SO ORDERED.

Arun Subramanian, U.S.D.J.
Date: September 24, 2024

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Nelson et
al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02425 (AS)

Dear Judge Subramanian:
We represent Third-Party Defendants VERSITY INVEST, LLC, a/k/a CREW
ENTERPRISES, LLC; VERSITY INVESTMENTS, LLC; BLAKE WETTENGEL; and
TANYA MURO (the “Third-Party Defendants”) in the above-referenced action.
Pursuant to section 11 of Your Honor’s Individual Practices, we write to respectfully
request the sealing of two exhibits to the Versity Defendants’ papers in support of their motion to
dismiss the Third-Party Complaint that the Versity Defendants will file today.
Third-Party Defendants propose filing excerpts of (i) the Term Sheet at issue between the
parties under seal because the majority of the content includes intimate details about the parties’
confidential finances and business relationships; and (ii) the pleadings in the Arbitration
proceeding in Orange County, California for the same reasons. The exhibits will be filed as
Exhibits A and B to the Declaration of Blake Wettengel.
Good cause exists to seal the two exhibits in their entirety. Sealing is warranted under
Second Circuit law. Notwithstanding the presumption of public access, courts may deny access
to records that are “sufficiently valuable and secret to afford an actual or potential economic
advantage over others.” In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., 258 F.R.D. 236, 245 (SDNY 2009). Sealing
is warranted where “[r]eputations would be impaired, personal relationships ruined, and

Case 1:24-cv-02425-AS

Document 61

Filed 09/23/24

Page 2 of 2

Honorable Arun Subramanian
September 23, 2024
Page 2
businesses destroyed on the basis of misleading or downright false information.” United States v.
Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048–49 (2d Cir. 1995). See Pro. Sound Servs., Inc. v. Guzzi, No. 02 CIV.
8428 (DC), 2003 WL 22097500, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2003), aff’d, 159 F. App’x 270 (2d
Cir. 2005) (complaint filed under seal to keep customer names confidential); see also Leonard as
Tr. of Poplawski 2008 Ins. Tr. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. of New York, No. 18-CV-4994-AKH,
2020 WL 1547486, at *1-*2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020) (granting motion to seal where document
quotes or paraphrases information protected from disclosure by law).
Third-Party Defendants have sought and received consent from Third-Party Plaintiff to
file the exhibits under seal.
For the foregoing reasons, the Third-Party Defendants respectfully request that the Court
seal two of the exhibits to the Wettengel Declaration in support of their Motion to Dismiss.
We appreciate the Court’s attention to this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

David A. Pellegrino
cc:

All Counsel of Record (via ECF)