Williams v. Marathon Capital of Illinois, LLC ( 2020 )

$5 FIFTH AVENUE WiGDaR LLP NEW YORK, NY 10003 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW ee Te FAX 272,257.6845 WAWWOWIGDORLAW. □□□ Michael J. Willemin mwillemin@wigdorlaw.com September 29, 2020 APPLICATION GRANTED VIA EMAIL SO ORDERED The Honorable John G. Koeltl ~ □ le ~ United States District Court Soo Southern District of New York / John G. Koelll, U.S.D.J. 500 Pear! Street, Courtroom 15C 4 3 6 | New York, New York 10007 INGO Re: Williams v. Marathon Capital of Illinois, LLC d/b/a Marathon Capital, LLC, Ted Brandt, Chuck Hinckley and Phillippe Lavertu; No. 20-cv-07783 Dear Judge Koeltl, We represent Plaintiff Logan Williams in this action and respectfully submit this letter motion seeking to replace Docket No. 1, the Complaint, in this matter with a redacted version. We are submitting this letter motion in accordance with the Southern District of New York Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions at Rule 21.7 and at the direction of the Help Desk, which granted a temporary sealing on September 25, 2020. We seek to replace Docket No. 1 because the document contains information identifying two third parties that, upon reflection, should have been redacted from the original Complaint. Thus, we seek to redact all reference to these individuals as referenced in paragraphs 3, 46, 47, 48, 49 and Footnote 1. A copy of the proposed replacement Complaint with redactions is annexed hereto as Exhibit The proposed redactions and request for the underlying Complaint to remain under seal rebut the presumption of open records. The courts in this District have acknowledged the importance of a third party’s privacy and granted redactions of a third party’s name. See, e.g., Doe v. Berg, No. 15-CV-9787 (RIS), 2016 WL 11597920, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2016) (citing United States v. Biaggi, 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 1987) (“Certainly, the privacy interests of innocent third parties ... should weigh heavily in a court’s balancing equation in determining what portions of motion papers in question should remain sealed or should be redacted.”)); E.E.O.C. v Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, 10 CIV. 655 LTS MHD, 2012 WL 691545, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2012) (collecting cases). Further, the redaction of these two names, people who are not parties to this action, will not in any way undermine the public’s understanding of the allegations contained in the Complaint. The redactions do not impede Defendants’ ability to defend this action nor will the redactions cause any prejudice to Defendants. WiGOGR LLP Judge John G. Koeltl September 29, 2020 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW Page 2 We thank Your Honor for the Court’s time and attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, ()/ Mi¢hael J. Willemin Enc.