Gupta v. Saxena

Opinion

SAMIDH GUHA PG | PERRY GUHA up 212-399-8350 □□□□□ sguba@perryquha.com □□□

August 9, 2021 Pad f □□□ Ce 4 le Via ECF □□□ . □□ The Honorable P. Kevin Castel pee yh United States District Judge United States District Court a we Southem District of New York oy’ 4 Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street qf □ New York, New York 10007 yo fe □□ p □ Re: Gupta v. New Silk Route Advisors, L.P., et al., 19 Civ. 09284 (PKC) L O v □□ Letter Motion to Seal Portions of ECF No. 83 and Select Attachments j 5 Dear Judge Castel: Zip iL 2 p □ he. □□ □□ In accordance with Your Honor’s Individual Practices 4 and 5 afd the Stipulation arid Order of Confidentiality entered by the Court on July 22, 2020 (ECF No, 33 — the “Confidentiality Order”), Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter (collectively, “NSR”) respectfully submit this letter motion to seal portions of the response letter (ECF No. 83) that Plaintiff filed on June 28, 2021. The next conference before the Court is scheduled for September 8, 2021.

On July 1, 2021 the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to seal (ECF No. 82), stating that “there has been no demonstration that the Lugosch Standard has been met.” See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Defendants move the Court to seal these materials, because, for the reasons set forth below and in the accompanying memorandum of law, the standard for sealing set forth in Lugosch is met with respect to the documents at issue in Plaintiff's motion. These documents included two privileged emails between NSR personnel and NSR’s outside counsel. Under Lugosch and other applicable caselaw, protection of privileged materials “is precisely the kind of countervailing concern that is capable of overriding the general preference for public access to judicial records.” Diversified Grp., Inc. v. Daugerdas, 217 F.R.D. 152, 160- 61 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). As the Zugosch Court itself made clear, privileged materials such as these should remain sealed. See Lugosch, 435 F, 3d at 120 & 125.,Accordingly, NSR moves the Court kK to order that certain portions of Exhibits 2 and 3 (ECF No. 83-2 & 83-3), and the two lines in Plaintiff's response letter (ECF No. 83) to NSR’s letter motion for a conference or permission to

«35 East 62nd Street, New York, NY 10065

The Honorable P. Kevin Castel August 9, 2021

file a motion for sanctions (ECF No. 81) remain sealed Plaintiff’s counsel has advised NSR that he does not oppose this letter-motion. ~

Because the sealed documents at issue here (ECF Nos. 83, 83-2 & 83-3) have already been filed with the court and to avoid filing additional material under seal, we have not filed additional copies of those same documents under seal with the proposed redactions highlighted, see Individual Practice 5(B)(iii), but can do so if the Court would find such a submission helpful. We thank the Court for its attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Samidh Guha ‘si Harris M. Mufson Samidh Guha Harris M. Mufson Peter A. Gwynne Proskauer Rose LLP Perry Guha LLP 11 Times Square 35 East 62nd Street New York, New York 10036 New York, New York 10065 hmufson@proskauer.com sguha@perryguha.com (212) 969-3000 (212) 399-8350

ce: All Counsel (via ECF) Enclosures