GateGuard, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc.

Opinion

ENDORSED EDEN P. QUAINTON A QUAINTON Law, PLLC VALERIE FIGUEREDO 2 PARK AVE., 20" FL. STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE New York, NY 10016 DATED: 6-18-2024 245 Nassau ST. Motion is granted, as PRINCETON, NJ 08540 has made the requisite Ss to file these documents TELEPHONE (212) 419-0575, (609) 356-0526 seal under Lugosch v. CELL: (202) 360-6296 Co. of Onondaga, 435 EDEN.QUAINTON @QUAINTONLAW.NET 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The Clerk of Court is respectfully asked to terminate the motion at une 10, 2024 VIA ECF ECF No. 176. Honorable Valerie Figueredo United States Magistrate Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 Re: GateGuard, Inc. vy. Amazon,com, Inc. et al., 2]-cv-932] — Letter Motion for Permission to File Supplemental Letter and Certain Exhibits in Support of Motion for Sanctions Under Seal

I represent the Plaintiff, GateGuard, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), in the above-captioned action and pursuant to Rule 1.G of this Court’s Individual Practices, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court’s permission to file an unredacted version of its Supplemental Letter in Support of its Motion for Sanctions (the “Supplemental Letter”) and certain exhibits under seal, with redacted versions on the public docket. While there is a presumption that the public and the press have a qualified First Amendment right to access judicial documents, the presumption may be overcome and sealing allowed “if specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga,435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (citation and quotation marks omitted). In the context of business documents like those at issue here, a party may overcome the presumption of access upon a showing of higher values such as “the protection of sensitive, competitive, or proprietary business information.” W.J. Deutsch & Sons Ltd. v. Zamora, 1:21-cv-11003-LTS, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2022). GateGuard’s Supplemental Letter contains a number of exhibits that have been designated as “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by Defendants that have not yet been de-designated for filing on the public docket. These documents should be maintained confidential to protect Defendants commercial interests. Courts will seal “business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing in the market.” New York v. Actavis, PLC, No. 14-CV-7473, 2014 WL 5353774, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2014). For example, courts will commonly grant a company’s request for sealing of “proprietary business information, such as internal analyses, business strategies, or customer negotiations” when disclosure of that information could “provide competitors with an unearned advantage.” SEC v. Telegram Grp. Inc., No. 19-CV-9439-PKC, 2020 WL 3264264, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2020). See also

Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:18-CV-4500-GHW, 2021 WL 1222122, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021) (“Courts commonly find that documents that contain trade secrets, confidential research and development information, marketing plans, revenue information, pricing information, and the like satisfy the sealing standard.”) (citation omitted). Here, while the information may not qualify as a trade secret, it could provide an advantage to competitors if it were made public. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that it be permitted to file an unredacted version of its Supplemental Letter and certain Exhibits under seal, with a redacted version of the documents being placed on the public docket. Plaintiff will file any documents on the public docket as directed by the Court. Respectfully submitted, Quanten Eden P. Quainton cc: All counsel of record (via ECF)