Brunckhorst III v. Bischoff

Opinion

quinn emanuel trial lawyers | new york 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL (212) 849-7000 FAX (212) 849-7100 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO. (212)849-7165 WRITER'S EMAIL ADDRESS stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com August 2, 2021 The Honorable John P. Cronan United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Frank Brunckhorst III v. Eric Bischoff et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-04362-JPC Dear Judge Cronan: We represent Plaintiff Frank Brunckhorst III (“Plaintiff”) in the above-referenced action. Pursuant to Rule 4.B of Your Honor’s Individual Rules, we submit this letter-motion seeking to file under seal Plaintiff’s August 2, 2021 letter (“Response Letter”) responding to the July 30, 2021 pre- motion letter (Dkt. 47) (the “Trustees’ Letter”), submitted by Defendants Richard Todd Stravitz and Susan Stravitz Kemp (the “Trustees”). We respectfully submit that Plaintiff’s Response Letter should be filed under seal, because it summarizes and quotes from a confidential provision of the 1991 Boar’s Head Shareholder’s Agreement (the “Shareholder’s Agreement”). As previously set forth in Plaintiff’s letter concerning redactions to the Complaint (Dkt. 24) (applying Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2006)), the Shareholder’s Agreement contains a confidentiality designation on both the cover page and first page of the Agreement, and it also involved certain non-parties to the lawsuit (who have previously kept such information confidential). The Court previously entered an Order allowing certain information relating to Shareholder’s Agreement to remain redacted (Dkt. 29). Consistent with that Order, the parties have previously treated the Agreement as confidential. See Dkt. 47 (redacted version of the Trustees’ Letter); Dkt. 48 (letter from Defendant Eric Bischoff, stating that he is filing his Answer, Counterclaim, and Cross-claim under seal). Plaintiff has prepared a narrowly-redacted version of his Response Letter, attached to this letter-motion. These narrow redactions are limited to the confidential terms of the Shareholder’s Agreement, and also are consistent with Plaintiff’s previous redactions to the Complaint (Dkt. 1) and the redactions applied by other parties. Dkt. 47 (Trustees’ Letter); Dkt. 49 (Defendant Bischoff’s Answer, Counterclaim, and Cross-claim). The unredacted portions of the Response Letter provide sufficient information for the public to ascertain the nature, scope, and facts of the parties’ dispute. For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that Plaintiff's Response Letter should be filed under seal, and the narrowly redacted version of the letter filed on the public docket.!

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stephen R. Neuwirth Stephen R. Neuwirth

This request is granted.

SO ORDERED. VbfB Date: August 2, 2021 JOHNP.CRONAN.——™ New York, New York United States District Judge

Plaintiff understands that Your Honor’s Individual Rules require a meet and confer prior to filing under seal. However, Plaintiff has not had an opportunity to meet and confer with the other parties to the above-captioned action, or with the other parties to the Shareholder’s Agreement, concerning his proposed redactions, because Plaintiff prepared his response letter over the weekend. The Trustees’ Letter was filed on Friday evening, July 30, 2021, and Plaintiff is filing his Response Letter this morning, Monday, August 2, 2021. As set forth above, however, Plaintiff's proposed redactions are consistent with Plaintiffs previous Court-approved redactions to the Complaint as well as the other parties’ recent filings, as detailed above.