DoorDash, Inc. v. City Of New York

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT USDC SDNY SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOCUMENT DOORDASH INC. ELECTRONICALLY FILED Oe DOC 2: Plaintiff, DATE FILED: _ 12/5/2024 -against- 21 Civ. 7695 (AT) CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant. PORTIER, LLC, Plaintiff, -against- 21 Civ. 10347 (AT) CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant. GRUBHUB INC., Plaintiff, -against- 21 Civ. 10602 (AT) CITY OF NEW YORK, ORDER Defendant. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: On June 7, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their omnibus letter motion to seal certain exhibits filed in connection with the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.! ECF No. 197. By order dated September 24, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion. ECF No. 213. As relevant here, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ request to seal their agreements with restaurants and to seal or redact portions of the rule 56.1 statements, depositions, and other materials prepared in the course of this litigation. Jd. at 9. The Court directed Plaintiffs to propose narrowly tailored redactions and granted them leave to file a renewed sealing motion. Jd. at 6, 9. On November 14, 2024, Plaintiffs submitted their renewed omnibus motion to seal, ECF No. 220, along with declarations and exhibits containing the requested narrowly tailored ! Plaintiffs previously moved to seal or redact certain materials in connection with their Rule 56.1 statements and cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 122, 129, 132, 147. The Court held Plaintiffs’ motions in abeyance pending its decision on Plaintiffs’ omnibus motion to seal. ECF No. 169.

redactions, ECF Nos. 222, 224-28, 230-34, 237-43, 248-50. Because Plaintiffs’ updated redactions comply with the Court’s September 24, 2024 order, their renewed omnibus motion to seal is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to strike from the docket the prior versions of certain redacted documents that were previously filed in connection with the cross-motions for summary judgment. See Kleeberg v. Eber, No. 16 Civ. 9517, 2019 WL 2085412, at *25 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2019). These prior versions are identified at pages 3—4 of Plaintiffs’ renewed omnibus motion to seal, ECF No. 220. The Clerk of Court is further directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 220. SO ORDERED. }- Dated: D 2024 Si ee ated: December 5, 20 ANALISA TORRES New York, New York . United States District Judge