CrossBorder Solutions, Inc. v. MGO ELECTRONICALLY FILED 7:20-cv-04877-NSR-JCM DOC #: DATE FILED: 1/17/2023 The Court is in receipt of the attached letter motion from Plaintiffs CrossBorder Solutions, Inc. and Cross Border Transactions, LLC d/b/a CrossBorder Solutions (together, "CrossBorder"), dated August 16, 2022, which requests leave to file documents under seal for in camera review and to file certain other documents entirely under seal, pursuant to the parties’ Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order, dat September 29, 2020 (ECF No. 81). The items CrossBorder seeks to file under seal are described in their lette motion (filed as ECF No. 195). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS CrossBorder's request to file the documents it indicates under seal in the manner described in their attached letter motion (ECF No. 195). The Clerk of the Court is kindly directed t terminate the motion at ECF No. 195. SO ORDERED: Dated: January 17, 2023 gente > White Plains, NY Lo AD IN-NECSON.S. ROMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 31 West 52nd Street | New York, NY 10019-6131 | tel 212.858.1000 | fax 212.858.1500 Kenneth W. Taber tel: +1.212.858.1813 kenneth.taber@pillsburylaw.com August 16, 2022 VIA ECF Hon. Nelson S. Roman, United States District Judge The Hon. Charles L. Brieant Jr. Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse 300 Quarropas St. White Plains, NY 10601-4150 Re: CrossBorder Solutions, Inc. v. MGO, Case No.: 7:20-cv-04877-NSR- JCM: Plaintiffs’ Request for Leave to File Under Seal for Jn Camera Review Plaintiffs’ Exhibits D, E, F, G and to File Under Seal Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Pre-Motion Conference Letter and Exhibits A, B, C, H, J, K Thereto Dear Judge Roman: We write on behalf of Plaintiffs CrossBorder Solutions, Inc. and Cross Border Transactions, LLC d/b/a CrossBorder Solutions (together, “Plaintiffs” or “CrossBorder”) to request leave to file certain documents under seal for in camera review, and to file certain other documents entirely under seal, pursuant to the parties’ Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order (“PO”), dated September 29, 2020, Dkt. 81. These documents, described immediately below, are all referenced in Plaintiffs’ opposition to the request by Defendants Macias, Gini & O’Connell, LLP (“MGO”) and Sanjay Agarwal (“Agarwal,” together with MGO, “Defendants”) for leave to file a motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 193: e Exhibit A: An October 7, 2020 internal MGO email, bates-stamped MG0O000309-MG0O0003 10, which Defendants marked CONFIDENTIAL. This will be filed under seal, to be accessed by all parties; e Exhibit B: Excerpts of text messages between former Defendant Liga Hoy and Agarwal, bates-stamped XBS016329-XBS016332, XBS016355, which CrossBorder marked HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL. This will be filed under seal, to be accessed by all parties. e Exhibit C: An email thread between former Defendant Hoy and her recruiter, dated March 5, 2020, bates-stamped XBS0007041-XBS0007042, which CrossBorder marked as CONFIDENTIAL. This will be filed under seal, to be accessed by all parties; www.pillsburylaw.com 4895-5271-0190 August 16, 2022 • Exhibit D: An email thread between former Defendant Hoy and Agarwal, dated May 19-21, 2020, attaching excerpts from CrossBorder’s trade secret Master List, bates-stamped MGO006570-MGO006577, which MGO marked HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL. This will be filed under seal for in camera review; • Exhibit E: An email between former defendant Hoy, Juline Cohen and Agarwal, dated June 8, 2020, attaching CrossBorder’s entire trade secret Master List, bates-stamped MGO007124-MGO007126, with a native excel attachment, which MGO marked HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL. This will be filed under seal for in camera review; • Exhibit F: An email between former Defendant Hoy, Juline Cohen and Agarwal, dated June 12, 2020, attaching CrossBorder’s entire trade secret Master List, bates-stamped MGO003244-MGO003246, with a native excel attachment, which MGO marked HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL. This will be filed under seal for in camera review; • Exhibit G: An email between former Defendant Hoy, Juline Cohen and Agarwal, dated June 12, 2020, attaching CrossBorder’s entire trade secret Master List, bates-stamped MGO007208-MGO007209, with a native excel attachment, which MGO marked HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL. This will be filed under seal for in camera review; • Exhibit H: Emails from MGO to CrossBorder clients, dated June 12-15, 2020, bates-stamped XBS009102-XBS009117, which CrossBorder marked HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL. This will be filed under seal, to be accessed by all parties; • Exhibit J: Excerpts of former Defendant Hoy’s February 19, 2021 deposition, which CrossBorder marked HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL. This will be filed under seal, to be accessed by all parties; and • Exhibit K: Excerpts of Agarwal’s May 23, 2022 deposition, which CrossBorder marked HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL. This will be filed under seal, to be accessed by all parties. In addition, Plaintiffs seek to file under seal Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Pre- Motion Conference Letter to protect references to confidential material in certain of the above-referenced exhibits contained therein. Pursuant to Rule 4.A. of Your Honor’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, a party seeking to file a document under seal must address the presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents. The Second Circuit set forth the relevant standard August 16, 2022 in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under Lugosch, “[t]here is a common law presumption in favor of permitting public access to judicial documents, which are those documents ‘relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” GoSMiLE, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C., 769 F. Supp. 2d 630, 649 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119). A court balances this common law presumption of access against competing comparisons, including “the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). Thus, the issue is whether “the privacy interests of the defendants outweigh the presumption of public access.” GoSMiLE, 769 F. Supp. 2d at 649-50. CrossBorder’s interest in protecting confidential and proprietary information, specifically identifying information concerning confidential CrossBorder clients, overcomes the presumption of access. Indeed, Your Honor has previously granted CrossBorder’s request to file under seal certain exhibits to protect the names of CrossBorder clients, which were clearly visible, Dkt. No. 91. Here, Exhibits D, E, F, and G contain the entirety or excerpts of CrossBorder’s stolen Master List of approximately 500 clients, complete with each client’s CrossBorder contract value, contract term and contract expiration date. Because these Exhibits contain confidential CrossBorder client information, which Your Honor has previously ruled is deserving of protecting and restricting public access, CrossBorder respectfully requests that the Court grant its request to file Exhibits D, E, F, and G under seal for in camera review. Additionally, CrossBorder seeks to file Exhibits A, B, C, H, J and K entirely under seal in accordance with the parties’ PO, as the correspondence was marked Confidential or Highly Confidential. CrossBorder therefore respectfully requests that the Court grant its request for filing documents under seal as well as certain documents under seal for in camera review. This is CrossBorder’s second request to file documents under seal for in camera review. Defendants MGO and Agarwal consent to this motion. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Kenneth W. Taber Kenneth W. Taber cc: All Counsel of Record (Via ECF)