FCS Advisors, LLC v. Theia Group, Inc.

Opinion

Reedsmith Reed Smith □□□ Driving progress 599 Lexington Avenue through partnership New York, NY 10022-7650 Kurt F. Gwynne +1 212 521 5400 Direct Phone: +1 212 549 0230 Fax +1 212524 5450 Email: kgwynne@reedsmith.com reedsmith.com

February 10, 2022 (a ebruary 10, VIA ECF □ U □□ CM Ree got Hon. P. Kevin Castel (o fL □ Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse & OQ oy, Courtroom 11D JE) pif 500 Pearl Street J) Ae 0 x □□ New York, New York 10007-1312 pe Vo □□ Re: FCS Advisors, LLC vy, Theia Group, Inc., et al; Case No, 21 ev 6995 (PKC) 7 Request to Provisionally Redact and Seal Certain Limited Information Dear Judge Castel: Pursuant to Rule 5(B) of Your Honor’s Individual Practices, we write on behalf of Michael Fuqua, as receiver (the “Receiver”) for Theia Group, Inc., Theia Aviation LLC, and Theta Holdings A, Inc. to (respectfully request permission to redact or seal, at least provisionally, certain personally identifiable information contained in Exhibit D to the Receiver’s response (the “Response”) to the Court’s Order dated January 26, 2022 (Doc. 178) (the “Order to Show Cause”), which we will be filing imminently, along with the corresponding information contained in the Response. Specifically, the Receiver secks permission to redact the names and personal e-mail addresses of certain individual holders of “friends and family” notes who have sent the Noteholder Emails (as defined in the Response), copies of which comprise Exhibit D to the Response, } The names and personal e-mail addresses of the individual “friends and family” noteholders implicate these individuals’ legitimate expectations-of privacy and are of the utmost personal nature, and therefore, the sealing of such information is in accord with the Second Circuit’s opinion in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although there is a presumption of public access to judicial documents, the Court “must determine the weight of that presumption,” and “balance competing considerations against it.” Jd. at 119-20 (citation omitted). The sealing of the names and personal e-mail addresses of the individual “friends and family” noteholders is narrowly tailored to preserve their privacy imterests and is not relevant to the Court’s adjudication of the Order to Show Cause. Indeed, the Second Circuit has noted that similar information may be redacted. Jd. (“[d]ocuiments may be sealed if specific, □ on the record findings are made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and 1s narrowly tailored to serve that interest.”) (citation omitted); see also Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 48 n.22 (2d Cir. 2019) (“We have implemented minimal redactions to protect personally identifying information such as personal phone numbers, contact lists, birth dates, and social security numbers.”). Accordingly, we respectfully request the Court’s permission to provisionally redact or seal the items referenced above, along with references to those material in the Response.

ABU DHABI ¢ ATHENS # AUSTIN ¢ BEIJING ¢ BRUSSELS ¢ CENTURY CITY ¢ CHICAGO ¢ DALLAS ¢ DUBAI ¢ FRANKFURT ¢ HONG KONG HOUSTON ¢ KAZAKHSTAN ¢ LONDON ¢ LOS ANGELES ¢ MIAM! ¢ MUNICH ¢ NEW YORK ¢ PARIS ¢ PHILADELPHIA # PITTSBURGH ¢ PRINCETON RIGHMOND ¢ SAN FRANCISCO ¢ SHANGHAI ¢ SILICON VALLEY ¢ SINGAPORE ¢ TYSONS ¢ WASHINGTON, D.C, # WILMINGTON

Hon. P. Kevin Castel ReedSmith February 10, 2022 Page 2 We thank the Court for its consideration of this request. Respectfully, REED SMITH LLP

By: 4/Kurt F. Gwynne Kurt F, Gwynne

cc! Michael Fuqua, Receiver All Counsel of Record (via ECP)