Bernstein v. Cengage Learning, Inc.

S.D. New York

Bernstein v. Cengage Learning, Inc.

DecidedFebruary 15, 2023

Docket1:19-cv-07541

StatusUnknown

This text of Bernstein v. Cengage Learning, Inc. (Bernstein v. Cengage Learning, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bernstein v. Cengage Learning, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

GIBSON DUNN Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel 213.229.7000 www.gibsondunn.com Christopher Chorba Direct: +1 213.229.7396 Defendant's letter-motion seeking to file under : Defendant’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Dani January 31, 2023 Spulber and (2) its accompanying exhibits, is GRANTED, and the documents at ECF Nos. 190 a VIA ECF 190-1 shall remain visible only to the selected pz Hon. Sarah L. Cave © The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to clos Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse |ecr No. 189. 7 Na 500 Pearl Street & va 4 hee New York, NY 10007-13 V2 sO ORDERED 02/15/23 \Gnitea se □□ Magistrate Judge Re: Bernstein v. Cengage Learning, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-07541-ALC-SLC Your Honor: We write on behalf of Defendant Cengage Learning, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. 49 J 10) and your Honor’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases 4 I.F.2., we respectfully seek leave to file under seal (1) Defendant’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Daniel F. Spulber (“Motion to Exclude”) and (2) the accompanying Appendix of Evidence. Cengage’s Motion to Exclude and the accompanying Appendix of Evidence reference or include documents and deposition testimony that the parties have designated as “Confidential” or “Attorney’s Eyes Only.” Cengage will file unredacted versions via ECF using the “Selected Parties” viewing level. These materials contain proprietary information regarding Cengage’s business activities and publishing agreements. Documents containing “trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information,” such as the proprietary information and contract terms at issue here, may be placed under seal upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G); see also GoSmile, Inc. v. Levine, 769 F. Supp. 2d 630, 649-50 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (granting motion to seal “highly proprietary material concerning ... marketing strategies, product development, costs and budgeting”); Standard Inv. Chartered, Inc. v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth., Ind., 347 F. App’x 615, 617 (2d Cir. 2009) (regulatory organization’s “interest in protecting confidential business information outweighs the qualified First Amendment presumption of public access’”). Cengage makes significant efforts to protect the confidentiality of the information reflected in the Motion to Exclude and Appendix of Evidence in order to prevent competing publishers from obtaining details to which they are not entitled and that would reveal the inner workings of its business. Preserving the confidentiality of Cengage’s non-public information is necessary to prevent it from falling into the hands of third parties who could use it to injure Cengage. See Gelb v. AT&T, 813 F. Supp. 1022, 1035 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (granting motion to seal documents based upon the “assertion that its competitors who do not now have this information could use it to do [the party] competitive injury”). Beijing - Brussels + Century City - Dallas - Denver - Dubai - Frankfurt » Hong Kong - Houston □ London - Los Angeles » Munich New York » Orange County - Palo Alto - Paris - San Francisco - Sao Paulo + Singapore - Washington, D.C.

GIBSON DUNN

January 31, 2023 Page 2

For the reasons set forth above, Cengage respectfully asks that the Court issue an order permitting Cengage to file under seal the Motion to Exclude and Appendix.

Sincerely,

Christopher Chorba

ce: All Counsel or Record (via ECF)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GIBSON DUNN Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel 213.229.7000 www.gibsondunn.com Christopher Chorba Direct: +1 213.229.7396 Defendant's letter-motion seeking to file under : Defendant’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Dani January 31, 2023 Spulber and (2) its accompanying exhibits, is GRANTED, and the documents at ECF Nos. 190 a VIA ECF 190-1 shall remain visible only to the selected pz Hon. Sarah L. Cave © The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to clos Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse |ecr No. 189. 7 Na 500 Pearl Street & va 4 hee New York, NY 10007-13 V2 sO ORDERED 02/15/23 \Gnitea se □□ Magistrate Judge Re: Bernstein v. Cengage Learning, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-07541-ALC-SLC Your Honor: We write on behalf of Defendant Cengage Learning, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. 49 J 10) and your Honor’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases 4 I.F.2., we respectfully seek leave to file under seal (1) Defendant’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Daniel F. Spulber (“Motion to Exclude”) and (2) the accompanying Appendix of Evidence. Cengage’s Motion to Exclude and the accompanying Appendix of Evidence reference or include documents and deposition testimony that the parties have designated as “Confidential” or “Attorney’s Eyes Only.” Cengage will file unredacted versions via ECF using the “Selected Parties” viewing level. These materials contain proprietary information regarding Cengage’s business activities and publishing agreements. Documents containing “trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information,” such as the proprietary information and contract terms at issue here, may be placed under seal upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G); see also GoSmile, Inc. v. Levine, 769 F. Supp. 2d 630, 649-50 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (granting motion to seal “highly proprietary material concerning ... marketing strategies, product development, costs and budgeting”); Standard Inv. Chartered, Inc. v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth., Ind., 347 F. App’x 615, 617 (2d Cir. 2009) (regulatory organization’s “interest in protecting confidential business information outweighs the qualified First Amendment presumption of public access’”). Cengage makes significant efforts to protect the confidentiality of the information reflected in the Motion to Exclude and Appendix of Evidence in order to prevent competing publishers from obtaining details to which they are not entitled and that would reveal the inner workings of its business. Preserving the confidentiality of Cengage’s non-public information is necessary to prevent it from falling into the hands of third parties who could use it to injure Cengage. See Gelb v. AT&T, 813 F. Supp. 1022, 1035 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (granting motion to seal documents based upon the “assertion that its competitors who do not now have this information could use it to do [the party] competitive injury”). Beijing - Brussels + Century City - Dallas - Denver - Dubai - Frankfurt » Hong Kong - Houston □ London - Los Angeles » Munich New York » Orange County - Palo Alto - Paris - San Francisco - Sao Paulo + Singapore - Washington, D.C.