Signify Holding B.V. v. TP-Link Research America Corporation ( 2022 )

Because the parties withdraw their motion to seal ECF No. 68-2, the Clerk FILED of the Court is respectfully directed to unseal the document at ECF No. #: 68-2. 9/12/2022 As to ECF No. 68-3, the parties’ proposed redactions are narrowly tailored in order to protect commercially sensitive information, the public disclosure VIA ECF of which could harm the parties. Accordingly, sealing is warranted in light of Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006), and its progeny. The Court thanks the parties for re-filing ECF No. 68-3 September 9, 2022 with redactions. SO ORDERED: Honorable Katharine H. Parker United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Uh QUAL lin Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse HON. KATHARINE H. PARKER 500 Pearl Street UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE □□□□□ □□□□□ New York, NY 10007-1312 Re: — Civil No. 1:21-cv-09472-JGK-KHP Dear Judge Parker: On August 19, 2022, the parties jointly moved to file two documents under seal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, Your Honor’s Individual Rule of Practice III(d), and the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (the “Protective Order”). See Dkt. 67 (joint motion to seal); Dkt. 68-2 (proposed sealed Ex. 1); Dkt. 68-3 (proposed sealed Ex. 2). Your Honor denied the motion to seal without prejudice and gave the parties the opportunity to file “a renewed motion that proposes narrowly tailored redactions of the two exhibits.” Dkt. 72 at 5. The parties hereby withdraw their motion to seal as to Exhibit 1 (Dkt. 68-2). The parties now request that Exhibit 2 (Dkt. 68-3) be lightly redacted. The proposed redaction is shown highlighted in the attachment. This redaction keeps confidential an amount paid which Defendants contend could indicate sales volumes to competitors. See Dkt. 72 at 4 (finding information that could indicate “sales volumes” may be redacted). Courts routinely permit sealing and redaction of such information. See, e.g., Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Sunny Merch. Corp., 97 F. Supp. 3d 485, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); Encyclopedia Brown Prods., Ltd. v. Home Box Office. Inc., 26 F. Supp. 2d 606, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); see also Nixon v. Warner Commce’ns Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (recognizing need to seal information that might “harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). The parties respectfully request that the Court grant the renewed motion to seal. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Kristopher L. Reed /s/ Jeremy P. Oczek Brian D. O’Reilly Jeremy P. Oczek Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Heath J. Szymezak (pro hac vice) 1114 Avenue of the Americas, 21st floor Avant Building, Suite 900 New York, NY, USA, 10036-7703 200 Delaware Avenue boreilly@kilpatricktownsend.com Buffalo, New York 14202 September 9, 2022 Page 2 Telephone: (212) 775-8700 Telephone: (716) 416-7000 Facsimile: (212) 775-8800 Email: jpoczek@bsk.com Email: hszymczak@bsk.com Kristopher L. Reed (pro hac vice) Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Counsel for Plaintiff 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 4400 Dallas, Texas 75201 kreed@kilpatricktownsend.com Telephone: (214) 922-7100 Facsimile: (214) 922-7101 Kevin M. Bell (pro hac vice) Edward J. Mayle (pro hac vice) Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP 1400 Wewatta St., Ste. 600 Denver, CO 80202 tmayle@kilpatricktownsend.com Telephone: (303) 571-4000 Facsimile: (303) 571-4321 Counsel for Defendants