Hamilton International Ltd. v. Vortic LLC

Opinion

wah WV Ve i ONY DO RAPE ENS TE od TENA AE OE od t “My ae NT Schwab ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB Victor, Tannenbaum Peter J. Lynfield Attorneys at Law Thomas E, Spath Athen oe Avene 1 David □□□□□□ Julianne Abelinan New York, New York 10017-5621 Dawid Toren (Ret) Marie Anne Mastovit Telephone: (212) 949-9022 Lori B, Cohen Anthony A. Coppola Facsimile: (212) 949-9190 Steven M. Hertzberg Ned W. Branthover : Charles S. Stein Anthony J. DiFilippi e-mail@lawabel.com Erica R. Halstead Jennifer R. Waitman Aimee M. Allen Norman D. Hanson Vindra Richter Frank Terranella — 1 Gir October 15, 2019 “isn □□□□□ *(Registered Patent Agent) Filed By ECF, and oo Email to NathanNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov | □□ Honorable. Alison J. Nathan, United States District Judge Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse Li 40 Foley Square i JAN 1 3 2020. 4 New York, NY 10007 □□ □□

Re: Hamilton Int’l. Ltd. v. Vortic LLC, et al.; 17 CV 5575 (AJN\((OTW). Judge Nathan: We represent the plaintiff Hamilton International Ltd. (“Hamilton”), and submit this letter motion pursuant to the Court’s Opinion and Order dated September 30, 2019 (Dkt. 115), seeking to redact portions of deposition testimony and documents submitted in connection with Hamilton’s motion for a summary judgment (Dkt. 77).! The material Hamilton seeks to redact has been designated by its counsel as “Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only” pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. 37). 2 Hamilton seeks to have its confidential business information redacted from the public record. If this information is publicly divulged, including to competitors, it may have a negative impact on Hamilton’s business operations. In such circumstances, confidential information may be protected from disclosure despite both the common law and First Amendment presumptions of public access to judicial documents. See Nixon v. Warner Commce’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (courts may refuse to permit files to be used “as [a] source[] of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”); Standard Inv. Chartered, Inc. v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth., Ind., 347 F. App’x 615, 616-17 (2d Cir. 2009) (First Amendment presumption

' The Court ordered that, “... Plaintiff shall support its application for redactions ... with authority and articulated reasoning that is specific to the content that it seeks to keep under seal.” Dkt. 115 at p. 17. * In compliance with Rule 4(B) of Your Honor’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, on February 15, 2019 (Dkt. 76), the undersigned filed a letter via the Courts ECF system, and emailed the same to the Court with a copy of the relevant documents in highlighted form, and with a loose leaf set of those pages on which plaintiff seeks redaction. A courtesy hard-copy of all papers associated with this redaction request was also mailed to Chambers.

EEE ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB Hon. Alison J. Nathan October 15, 2019 Page 2 was overcome where the court found that disclosure would subject party to harm and cause competitive disadvantage); Encyclopedia Brown Prods., Ltd. v. Home Box Office Inc., 26 F.Supp.2d 606, 608-09, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (common law presumption overcome where information “would give [defendant’s] competitors a bargaining advantage in negotiating with [its supplier]”); In re Parmalat Securities Litigation, 258 F.R.D. 236, 244 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). The Court must balance the importance of public access against competing considerations. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006). In light of the Court’s September 30" Order, Hamilton has lessened its redaction request. The information Hamilton seeks to protect is limited and narrowly tailored. See, Prescient Acquisition Grp, Inc. v. MJ Publ’g Trust, 487 F. Supp. 2d 374, 375 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (a party seeking to seal documents must “identify with particularity (i.e. page and line) the precise information ... which the party maintains should be kept under seal” and “demonstrate[e] the particular need for sealing the information.”). Hamilton is now seeking to redact only a small amount of information pertaining to its business operations which if disclosed to the public would put it at a competitive disadvantage. See, Declaration of Antoine Haller attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Set forth below is a chart identifying the few documents plaintiff seeks to redact and the basis for the redaction.

Page 13, lines 20 — 22, Page 16, lines 17 — 19 | Redacted information pertains to Hamilton’s of Memorandum of Law in Support of | product pricing, 2017 sales volume, and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment | projected sales volume for 2018, which if (Dkt. 83) divulged to the public could cause harm to Hamilton’s business. Page 3, paragraphs 12 -14 of Statement of | Redacted information pertains to Hamilton’s Undisputed Material Facts in Support of | product pricing; 2017 sales volume; and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and | projected sales volume for 2018, which if Entry of a Permanent Injunction (Dkt. 81) divulged to the public could cause harm to Hamilton’s business. Excerpts of the Deposition Transcript of Mamy | Redacted information pertaining to Hamilton’s Murielle Raveloson attached as Exhibit 4 to the | historical advertising budget in the United Declaration of Michael Aschen in Support of | States; manufacturing sources; sales outlets; Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment | sales volume; and product pricing, which if (Dkt. 84-4) divulged to the public could cause harm to Hamilton’s business. Exhibit 5 to the Deposition Transcript of | Invoices from The Swatch Group U.S. Inc., Mamy Murielle Raveloson attached as Exhibit | Hamilton Division. Redacted information 4 to the Declaration of Michael Aschen in| pertains to Hamilton’s pocket watch sales Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary | volume and product pricing which if divulged Judgment (Dkt. 84-4) to the public could cause harm to Hamilton’s business.. Additional redacted information pertains to products which are not relevant to any claims or defenses in this case.

26.287 VOUS SPIN NY IO ba RP a ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB Hon. Alison J. Nathan October 15, 2019 Page 3 For the foregoing reasons it is respectfully requested that the Court grant this application for redaction of the few items identified above and maintain the un-redacted copies of the documents under seal. Respectfully submitted,

Michael Aschen MA:pz Att. ce: Hamilton Int’l. Ltd. Anthony J. DiFilippi, Esq. Counsel for Defendants (by ECF and email)

Having reviewed these redaction and sealing requests, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion. The Court finds that the requests are narrowly tailored to protect competitive business information. Applying the Second Circuit standard set out in Lugosch, the protection against the risk of competitive disadvantage in this case is of a higher value than the value to the public such that closure is necessary. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 Qd Cir. 2006). SO ORDERED.

\ / ' 3/ ao SO ORDE ML AL A N | ALISON J. NATHAN UNW@ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE