de Lacour v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.

Opinion

BLECIBUNIOALL Y □□□□□ DOC #: BURSOR. FISHE]>s=st20: 12127202

701 BRICKELL AVENUE. SARAH N. WESTCOT SUITE 1420 Tel: 305.330.5512 MIAMI, FL 33131 Fax: 305.679.9006 www.bursor.com swestcot@bursor.com December 1, 2022 Via ECF The Honorable Kimba M. Wood United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: de Lacour, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-08364-KMW Dear Judge Wood: MEMO ENDORSED I write on behalf of Plaintiffs Anne de Lacour, Andrea Wright and Loree Moran (“Plaintiffs”) in the above action. Pursuant to Rule 5(B) of Your Honor’s Individual Practices, Plaintiffs respectfully request to file under seal portions of the following documents and exhibits:

e Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Tom’s of Maine, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment e Plaintiffs’ Response to Tom’s of Maine, Inc.’s Statement of Material Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 e Exhibits 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 24 to the Declaration of Sarah N. Westcot in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant Tom’s of Maine, Inc’s Motion for Summary Judgment e Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Colgate-Palmolive Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment e Plaintiffs’ Response to Colgate-Palmolive Company’s Statement of Material Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 e Exhibits 2, 4, 5, and 6 to the Declaration of Sarah N. Westcot in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant Colgate-Palmolive Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment

DURSOROEPISHAKR PAGE 2

e Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Reports and Testimony of Plaintiffs’ Experts J. Michael Dennis and Colin B. Weir

The above documents and exhibits contain proprietary information that Defendants Colgate Palmolive Co. and Tom’s of Maine Inc. have designated as “confidential,” as detailed in Defendants’ Letter Motion to Seal. ECF No. 226. The Court recently granted Defendants’ Letter Motion to Seal in its entirety. ECF No. 259. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to file the above documents and exhibits under seal to avoid public disclosure of information Defendants, and the Court, have deemed sensitive. Plaintiffs have conferred with Defendants regarding this request to seal, and Defendants have not objected to this request. Pursuant to Rule 5(B) of Your Honor’s Individual Practices, Plaintiffs will (a) publicly file the listed documents and exhibits with the proposed redactions, and (b) file under seal a copy of the listed documents and exhibits with the proposed redactions highlighted via the ECF System.

Respectfully submitted,

Sarah N. Westcot

do not object, is hereby GRANTED. review of the proposed redactions (see ECF Nos. 263, 266, 268, 270, 272, 274, 277), the Court finds they are narrowly tailored to protect proprietary business information. This information is similar in ature to the information the Court previously determined warranted sealing. (See Order, ECF No. 259.) the Court concludes that the sensitivity of the information identified above outweighs the resumption of access. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). with Defendants' redactions, the Court may reconsider its sealing determinations at any time, on notice the parties, with respect to any and all sealed or redacted portions of Plaintiffs' materials. O ORDERED. New York, New York December 12, 2022 /s/ Kimba M. Wood KIMBA M. WOOD