Roth v. Armistice Capital, LLC ( 2024 )

Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP T +1 212.872.1000 ki ne Pryant Far F +1 212.872.1002 maar Mego Akin Kaitlin D. Shapiro +1 212.872.8096/fax: +1 212.872.1002 kshapiro@akingump.com May 23, 2024 VIA ECF Honorable Jennifer L. Rochon United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street, Room 1920 New York, NY 10007 Re: Roth v. Armistice Capital, LLC et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-08872 (JLR) Dear Judge Rochon: We represent defendants Armistice Capital, LLC, Armistice Capital Master Fund Ltd., and Steven J. Boyd (together, the “Armistice Defendants’’) in the above-captioned action. We have been informed that Plaintiff Andrew E. Roth (“Plaintiff”) intends to make a filing with the Court that will include the attached documents as exhibits. These documents contain certain personally identifying information. Accordingly, we write pursuant to Rule 4(B) of Your Honor’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases to respectfully request redaction of certain personally identifying information from Plaintiff’s filing. In accordance with Your Honor’s rules, we conferred with Plaintiff's counsel by email on May 22, 2024. Plaintiff’s counsel has no objections to the proposed redactions, which Plaintiffs counsel has prepared in connection with his filing. We are submitting herewith copies of the three documents with redactions and will contemporaneously file under seal unredacted, highlighted copies of those same documents, which we received from Plaintiffs counsel. Despite the presumption of public access to judicial documents, courts permit the sealing and redaction of documents when faced with countervailing factors that warrant confidentiality. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Nixon □□□ Warner Commce’ns Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). Courts take certain privacy interests, including the need to protect confidential personal information, into account when granting requests to seal and redact information. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124; see also Rojas v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., No. 18-CV-1433 (PKC), 2022 WL 773309, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2022) (considering the “privacy interests” of individuals in granting motion to redact confidential personal information). As a result, courts routinely permit parties to redact personally identifiable information such as personal telephone numbers. See, e.g., Rojas, 2022 WL 773309, at *3 (permitting redaction of Akin Honorable Jennifer L. Rochon United States District Court Southern District of New York May 23, 2024 Page 2 witness’s telephone number because it “does not assist the public in monitoring or understanding the judicial process”); United States v. Vinas, No. 08-CR-823 (NGG), 2017 WL 1969665, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 11, 2017) (redaction of personal phone number to protect privacy interest was consistent with rules permitting redaction of “personal identifying information’). Here, the documents Plaintiff seeks to file include particular individuals’ personal mobile telephone numbers. The personal telephone numbers are not relevant to any claim or defense in this case, nor helpful to the public in monitoring or understanding the judicial process. See Rojas, 2022 WL 773309, at *3. This is the type of personal identifying information that courts permit to be redacted, and the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of these individuals without burdening the public’s right of access. See id. For these reasons, the Armistice Defendants respectfully request that the foregoing documents be filed under seal and with redactions. Respectfully, /s/ Kaitlin D. Shapiro Kaitlin D. Shapiro cc: All Counsel (via ECF) The request to file these three documents with the proposed redactions is GRANTED. Dated: May 24, 2024 SO ORDERED. New York, New York iB Att 4 L. ROCHON nited States District Judge