In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation

S.D. New York

In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation

DecidedMay 18, 2023

Docket1:20-cv-05914

StatusUnknown

This text of In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation (In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP MATTHEW W. ABBOTT DANIEL J. KRAMER JAGGE &. ADLERSTEIN GAIA KUSHNER 1285 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS UNET S201, FORTUNE FINANCIAL CENTER REAR PARRA ReRboRV Ee □□□□□□ me , ie . Ff, JONATHAN H, ASHTOR BREGH □□□ LAVIN NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019-6064 A‘ moe sean ta ZHONGLU ROBERT A. ATIUNE MAD ORGS □□□ SKAOTANG BLSTRICT, 1 1G020, , □□ tea PAUL M. SASTA LORETTA BE. i¥NCH 2723606 TELEPHONE (86-105 Sh26-8300 3. STEVEN BAUGHMAN JEPPREY D. MARELL Ghai 2 BENSON Eivow. nao K. GARRIGON ©1948-f8913 SUITES 4604 S808 A 3610 jaseen J) BAL Hisaeerd □□□□□□ PAUL f9946-1¢883 BRYCE SINENEO HEAN MM. MCLOUGHLIN SIMON | ilenciged 38:8, GLOUCESTER TOWER RISTOPHER BORRMING AINARG MENERILLERA ; THE LANDMARK ReRAAD EG MARE F MENDELSSOHN WEISS OR 7-1e8C) tS QUEEN'S ROAR. CENTRAL aageke Oe on Segre □□□ □□□□ JOHN EO WHARTON eR Ti a775 wana KONG DAVE Wo BRGWN TUGIE NG SHORTELL* WALTER BNCIN7+ GATHERINE NYARADY TELEPHONE (882) 2846-0300 BHGANBLA RM. BUEROEL J4HE O BHIEN TERRE Baron EINUBAY □□ PARKS SPOPPREY A. CHEPIGA ANDREW i. PARLEN ALDER CASTLE ELLEN MH. CHING DANIELLE □□ PEMHALL . 10 NOBLE STREET Muhge Gayton Teaie ae □□□□□□□□ WRITER'S DIAL NUMBER LONDON BC2Y FU. UMITED KINGDOM YAHOMMES CLEARY AVSTIN POLLET#« JAY COMEN VALERIE &. RADWANER TELERHONE (44 20) 7267 1600 KELUEY A, CORNISH JEEFREY J, RECHER (212) 373-2553 SHBISTOUNER 7 CUNIINSE, «Toni L." wale PUROKYU SEIMEL BUILDING MEREDITH DEARBORN’? JEAMHIE S, □□□□□ WRITER'S DIRECT FACRIMILE 22 UCHISAIWAICHG 2-GHOME eee Peale OM Nettee a □□□□□ CHIYODA-KU, TOKYO POO-DOTE, JAPAN ae yl eee EArToR ANGE SMe ROSENBERG tL ad, ERRL OSE (212) 492-0653 TELEPHONE (81-9) SSS 7 GGL GREGORY 4 EZAING JACQUELINE AUBIN SHDREW © FINGE RAPHAEL RUSSO £-MAL ADDRESS YARONTO-DOMINION CENTRE ESAT As FINNELST atte □□□ □□□□□□□□□□ be Ein sbu n el@p eiss com "9 RING STREET WEST, SUITE S109 sone bet FNAL ZEEPREY □□□□□□ erg BLUWOet PG. BOR B25 TERE #3 □ □□□□□□□□□ □ HABRIG FISLHMAN RUBERT RB, SCHUMER Neurrtione iets. soa 0820 SHORE | oren aalttecaeean TREUBPHONE (4185 O826 HARKS B. FREIDUS HYLE £ SERED SaNOEL 2 FREY SONMEA SINGLE = ca LAY soot karngen Nyy ROBBEN Eats Eber boise HA. GA BD. WASHINGTON, de BO0GG: 1O4dF MICHAEL E. GERTZHAN SARAH STASNY YTRLEPHONE (202) 223-7400 AGAM MM. GIVERTZ TARMH M. STEWART □□ SO aAN eee SMA StNNOTE 590 DELAWARE AVENUE. SUITE 2610 NOoEnTS | GONBALEE BaHaae Ce □□□□□□□□ POST CFFICE BOX 32 RINE Gosge oR OS hlca& □□□□□□□□ a = EK. TR. □ May 15, 27023 WILMINGTON, OF ASa-O0)s ANDREW G. GORDON SaNleL J, THAL May - TELEPRONE (302) GESdA1D aeheeian BORE SuAN □□□□□□□□□□□□ NICHOLAS CROOMBH IO RRISHEA VESRARAGKAVAN Matuina Haase SP fine nt eer □□□□□□ ALAN 8, HALPERIN SICHAEL VOGEL LAMBA HAMMER AI RAY 4. WAHBEH ToENUA HE ieWnediice □□ wee MICHELE HINSGMAN FHEOHORE □□ WELLS, □□□ ASRRET? RF. HOFFMAN LIWDEEY L. □□□□□□□□ ROBBERY E, #OLG STEVEN 3. WHLIAMS DAVID S RUNTINGTON LAWRENCE 1. □□□□□□□□□□ AMBAH HUSSERT AUSTIAG WITT aA At ISAACEON* WIRLEETEIN JAREN JANGHORBANS JULIA TARVER MASON □□□□□ TENG JOFINSOR Berry vape BRAD 5, KARP JOROAI E, YARETT TaEN GS Rennieoy Sate Wr □□□□□ BAIAM RIM THACEY &. ZACCONE KYLE J. KiMPLER TAUIFAIE MM. ZEITZER ALEZIA □□□ SORBERG +t ROSEST ZOCMOWSEL, JR. ye ALAM KORMBERG Via ECF a§eST ATMITTES TG tit NEM YORK SAA +ADBAIT TED Oui Td THE CALIFORNIA BAR Hon. Paul A. Engelmayer, United States District Judge Tt Spn- tog United States District Court te □□ Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007

Re: In re: Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation, 1:20-cv-5914 (PAB) Dear Judge Engelmayer: We represent Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC in connection with the tots . . above-referenced matter. We write jointly with Settlement Class Counsel, Nussbaum Law . : wos Group and Morgan & Morgan. Pursuant to Rule 4.B of this Court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, and consistent with the letter motion filed February 15,2023 (ECF 4

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON ®& GARRISON LLP No, 203), the March 14, 2023 Letter submitted to this Court (ECF No. 208), and as we discussed on the record during the August 5, 2022 settlement approval hearing, we respectfully request leave to publicly file a redacted copy of the second quarterly status update report of the work completed to date by Kroll, Inc. (the “Second Kroll Report”), given the sensitive persona! and confidential information contained therein, In the Second Circuit, there exists a rebuttable presumption of public access for any “judicial documents” filed with the court. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Simply because a paper is filed with the court does not make it a “judicial document,” but rather the document must be “relevant to the performance of the judicial function” or useful in the judicial process. /d. at 119. Where a document is found to be a judicial document, but is not necessary for some kind of dispositive determination, the standard to rebut that presumption of public access and to sustain redactions is lower. See Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 2021 WL 1222122, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021). Two of the kinds of values that may justify the sealing or redaction of documents include protecting privacy interests of third parties or other sensitive information such as proprietary commercial information. See Church & Dwight Co, v. SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostics GmbH, 2018 WL 4253181, at *2 n1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2018) (finding proposed redactions in post-trial submissions appropriate when natrowly tailored to protect proprietary and competitively sensitive information, including information that the parties were contractually obligated to keep confidential); E.E.O.C. v. Kelley Drye & Warren LEP, 2012 WL 691545, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2012) (noting acceptable justifications for redactions include privacy interests of innocent third parties); Standard & Poor's Corp. v. Commodity Exch., Inc., 541 F. Supp. 1273, 1277 (S.D.NLY.

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1982) (finding limited redactions justified where redactions were tailored to protecting party’s commercial information, including index-rendering methodology, and in order to avoid potential harassment or disruptions that could prevent the relevant analysts from performing their jobs properly). Here, the Second Kroll Report is not a submission in support of a dispositive motion, for which the most conservative approach would be warranted. As a result, the report is a judicial document subject to a lower presumption of public access. Nonetheless, the Second Kroll Report is “relevant to the performance of the judicial function”: the Court ordered the parties to submit quarterly reports to ensure compliance with the settlement agreement. With that purpose in mind, the parties endeavored to narrowly tailor their redactions to the Second Kroll Report so that Settlement Class Members who may review the publicly available version can generally understand the steps that Kroll has undertaken to recover decommissioned devices and the success of those efforts. Specifically, the redactions obscure the details regarding Kroll’s communications with certain downstream purchasers of the decommissioned drives at issue, which includes the personal identifiable information (“PII”) of those downstream purchasers. The redactions are intended to both shield the privacy of the downstream purchasers and avoid sharing information that could potentially assist a malicious actor in finding and acquiring NetApp devices before Kroll is able to locate them.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Susanna M. Buergel Susanna M. Buergel

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP Jane Baek O’Brien Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP Counsel for Defendant Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC /s/ Linda P, Nussbaum Linda P. Nussbaum Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP MATTHEW W. ABBOTT DANIEL J. KRAMER JAGGE &. ADLERSTEIN GAIA KUSHNER 1285 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS UNET S201, FORTUNE FINANCIAL CENTER REAR PARRA ReRboRV Ee □□□□□□ me , ie . Ff, JONATHAN H, ASHTOR BREGH □□□ LAVIN NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019-6064 A‘ moe sean ta ZHONGLU ROBERT A. ATIUNE MAD ORGS □□□ SKAOTANG BLSTRICT, 1 1G020, , □□ tea PAUL M. SASTA LORETTA BE. i¥NCH 2723606 TELEPHONE (86-105 Sh26-8300 3. STEVEN BAUGHMAN JEPPREY D. MARELL Ghai 2 BENSON Eivow. nao K. GARRIGON ©1948-f8913 SUITES 4604 S808 A 3610 jaseen J) BAL Hisaeerd □□□□□□ PAUL f9946-1¢883 BRYCE SINENEO HEAN MM. MCLOUGHLIN SIMON | ilenciged 38:8, GLOUCESTER TOWER RISTOPHER BORRMING AINARG MENERILLERA ; THE LANDMARK ReRAAD EG MARE F MENDELSSOHN WEISS OR 7-1e8C) tS QUEEN'S ROAR. CENTRAL aageke Oe on Segre □□□ □□□□ JOHN EO WHARTON eR Ti a775 wana KONG DAVE Wo BRGWN TUGIE NG SHORTELL* WALTER BNCIN7+ GATHERINE NYARADY TELEPHONE (882) 2846-0300 BHGANBLA RM. BUEROEL J4HE O BHIEN TERRE Baron EINUBAY □□ PARKS SPOPPREY A. CHEPIGA ANDREW i. PARLEN ALDER CASTLE ELLEN MH. CHING DANIELLE □□ PEMHALL . 10 NOBLE STREET Muhge Gayton Teaie ae □□□□□□□□ WRITER'S DIAL NUMBER LONDON BC2Y FU. UMITED KINGDOM YAHOMMES CLEARY AVSTIN POLLET#« JAY COMEN VALERIE &. RADWANER TELERHONE (44 20) 7267 1600 KELUEY A, CORNISH JEEFREY J, RECHER (212) 373-2553 SHBISTOUNER 7 CUNIINSE, «Toni L." wale PUROKYU SEIMEL BUILDING MEREDITH DEARBORN’? JEAMHIE S, □□□□□ WRITER'S DIRECT FACRIMILE 22 UCHISAIWAICHG 2-GHOME eee Peale OM Nettee a □□□□□ CHIYODA-KU, TOKYO POO-DOTE, JAPAN ae yl eee EArToR ANGE SMe ROSENBERG tL ad, ERRL OSE (212) 492-0653 TELEPHONE (81-9) SSS 7 GGL GREGORY 4 EZAING JACQUELINE AUBIN SHDREW © FINGE RAPHAEL RUSSO £-MAL ADDRESS YARONTO-DOMINION CENTRE ESAT As FINNELST atte □□□ □□□□□□□□□□ be Ein sbu n el@p eiss com "9 RING STREET WEST, SUITE S109 sone bet FNAL ZEEPREY □□□□□□ erg BLUWOet PG. BOR B25 TERE #3 □ □□□□□□□□□ □ HABRIG FISLHMAN RUBERT RB, SCHUMER Neurrtione iets. soa 0820 SHORE | oren aalttecaeean TREUBPHONE (4185 O826 HARKS B. FREIDUS HYLE £ SERED SaNOEL 2 FREY SONMEA SINGLE = ca LAY soot karngen Nyy ROBBEN Eats Eber boise HA. GA BD. WASHINGTON, de BO0GG: 1O4dF MICHAEL E. GERTZHAN SARAH STASNY YTRLEPHONE (202) 223-7400 AGAM MM. GIVERTZ TARMH M. STEWART □□ SO aAN eee SMA StNNOTE 590 DELAWARE AVENUE. SUITE 2610 NOoEnTS | GONBALEE BaHaae Ce □□□□□□□□ POST CFFICE BOX 32 RINE Gosge oR OS hlca& □□□□□□□□ a = EK. TR. □ May 15, 27023 WILMINGTON, OF ASa-O0)s ANDREW G. GORDON SaNleL J, THAL May - TELEPRONE (302) GESdA1D aeheeian BORE SuAN □□□□□□□□□□□□ NICHOLAS CROOMBH IO RRISHEA VESRARAGKAVAN Matuina Haase SP fine nt eer □□□□□□ ALAN 8, HALPERIN SICHAEL VOGEL LAMBA HAMMER AI RAY 4. WAHBEH ToENUA HE ieWnediice □□ wee MICHELE HINSGMAN FHEOHORE □□ WELLS, □□□ ASRRET? RF. HOFFMAN LIWDEEY L. □□□□□□□□ ROBBERY E, #OLG STEVEN 3. WHLIAMS DAVID S RUNTINGTON LAWRENCE 1. □□□□□□□□□□ AMBAH HUSSERT AUSTIAG WITT aA At ISAACEON* WIRLEETEIN JAREN JANGHORBANS JULIA TARVER MASON □□□□□ TENG JOFINSOR Berry vape BRAD 5, KARP JOROAI E, YARETT TaEN GS Rennieoy Sate Wr □□□□□ BAIAM RIM THACEY &. ZACCONE KYLE J. KiMPLER TAUIFAIE MM. ZEITZER ALEZIA □□□ SORBERG +t ROSEST ZOCMOWSEL, JR. ye ALAM KORMBERG Via ECF a§eST ATMITTES TG tit NEM YORK SAA +ADBAIT TED Oui Td THE CALIFORNIA BAR Hon. Paul A. Engelmayer, United States District Judge Tt Spn- tog United States District Court te □□ Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007

Re: In re: Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation, 1:20-cv-5914 (PAB) Dear Judge Engelmayer: We represent Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC in connection with the tots . . above-referenced matter. We write jointly with Settlement Class Counsel, Nussbaum Law . : wos Group and Morgan & Morgan. Pursuant to Rule 4.B of this Court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, and consistent with the letter motion filed February 15,2023 (ECF 4

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON ®& GARRISON LLP No, 203), the March 14, 2023 Letter submitted to this Court (ECF No. 208), and as we discussed on the record during the August 5, 2022 settlement approval hearing, we respectfully request leave to publicly file a redacted copy of the second quarterly status update report of the work completed to date by Kroll, Inc. (the “Second Kroll Report”), given the sensitive persona! and confidential information contained therein, In the Second Circuit, there exists a rebuttable presumption of public access for any “judicial documents” filed with the court. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Simply because a paper is filed with the court does not make it a “judicial document,” but rather the document must be “relevant to the performance of the judicial function” or useful in the judicial process. /d. at 119. Where a document is found to be a judicial document, but is not necessary for some kind of dispositive determination, the standard to rebut that presumption of public access and to sustain redactions is lower. See Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 2021 WL 1222122, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021). Two of the kinds of values that may justify the sealing or redaction of documents include protecting privacy interests of third parties or other sensitive information such as proprietary commercial information. See Church & Dwight Co, v. SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostics GmbH, 2018 WL 4253181, at *2 n1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2018) (finding proposed redactions in post-trial submissions appropriate when natrowly tailored to protect proprietary and competitively sensitive information, including information that the parties were contractually obligated to keep confidential); E.E.O.C. v. Kelley Drye & Warren LEP, 2012 WL 691545, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2012) (noting acceptable justifications for redactions include privacy interests of innocent third parties); Standard & Poor's Corp. v. Commodity Exch., Inc., 541 F. Supp. 1273, 1277 (S.D.NLY.

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1982) (finding limited redactions justified where redactions were tailored to protecting party’s commercial information, including index-rendering methodology, and in order to avoid potential harassment or disruptions that could prevent the relevant analysts from performing their jobs properly). Here, the Second Kroll Report is not a submission in support of a dispositive motion, for which the most conservative approach would be warranted. As a result, the report is a judicial document subject to a lower presumption of public access. Nonetheless, the Second Kroll Report is “relevant to the performance of the judicial function”: the Court ordered the parties to submit quarterly reports to ensure compliance with the settlement agreement. With that purpose in mind, the parties endeavored to narrowly tailor their redactions to the Second Kroll Report so that Settlement Class Members who may review the publicly available version can generally understand the steps that Kroll has undertaken to recover decommissioned devices and the success of those efforts. Specifically, the redactions obscure the details regarding Kroll’s communications with certain downstream purchasers of the decommissioned drives at issue, which includes the personal identifiable information (“PII”) of those downstream purchasers. The redactions are intended to both shield the privacy of the downstream purchasers and avoid sharing information that could potentially assist a malicious actor in finding and acquiring NetApp devices before Kroll is able to locate them.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Susanna M. Buergel Susanna M. Buergel

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP Jane Baek O’Brien Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP Counsel for Defendant Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC /s/ Linda P, Nussbaum Linda P. Nussbaum Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. _/s/ Jean Martin Jean Martin Morgan & Morgan Settlement Class Counsel ce: All counsel of record

The Court finds that the redactions are no greater than necessary to protect the purchasers’ privacy interests and Kroll's proprietary commercial practices and, accordingly, approves the filing of the redacted report. SO ORDERED. Pant A. En Uhr / PAUL A. ENGELMAYER United States District Judge May 17, 2023

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-morgan-stanley-data-security-litigation-nysd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack