In re Omnicom Group. Inc. ERISA Litigation

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: February 22, 2022
• Docket: 1:20-cv-04141
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

r Fey pe BEM EM pete, Poe ied bec hes budtecuaad LipChe ya), | Telephone: (866) 540-8505 8 MILL] k SHAH _ ENE Be EE ahd Simtle (866) 300-7267, □□□ ATTOR NEV SAT Ry www.inillershah.com _ □ □ || USDC SDNY | Up | | DOCUMENT i bat Pad he iu ie A, oe my no □ || DOC #: PO A MAR

The Honorable Colleen McMahon ue yoo pee ge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, “ad Pk, □□ 500 Pearl Street, Room 2550 EEN La Ar note a Rs he 8 □□ New York, NY 10007 ue 4 iN \ pt i vod a “ Re: Inve Omnicom Grp., Inc. ERISA Litig., Je Ak Sea ae Case No. 1:20-cv-04141-CM- SLC SR ie ¢ Dear Judge McMahon, Ag gh CIE oy fh ve \ er □□ □ We represent the Plaintiffs! in the above-referenced matter and we write to request | > □□ permission to file certain exhibits to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and supporting □□ □□ briefing, which will be filed on this date, under seal and to redact quotations from these □□ af’ exhibits from the public filing on ECF. □□ □ □□ Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and supporting briefing reference and attach», □□ documents that Defendants have designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the protective ~ , □□ order entered by the Court (ECF No. 67), which provides for confidential treatment of ad □□ documents that contain, for example, proprietary business information trade secrets Naw □ □ + . ‘ wae ae □□ □□□ □□□ □□ including non-public creative intellectual property, or other competitively sensitive □□□ GA information, While Plaintiffs do not independently take the position that the documents □□□ a4 sought to be filed under seal require such protection, Plaintiffs make the instant request out) of an abundance of caution and deference to Defendants’ designations under the protective © order. Plaintiffs also note that their request only seeks leave to file two documents under □□ □□ seal and redact limited information from those documents appearing elsewhere in Plaintiffs’ □ . | briefing. This limited request will enable the public to adequately understand the substance □□ and grounds of Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification even without public filing ofthe □□□□ documents sought to be sealed. ode BAL □□□ . Courts in this circuit have recognized that the presumption of public access to eo A □ judicial documents must be weighed against “the role of the material at issue’ andthe = □□

'The Plaintiffs in this Action are Shane Tepper, Surfina Adams, Michael Mensack, Carol a □ □ Maisonette, and Daniel Dise. □ af : | 5,

© GALIFORNIA # CONNECTICUT ® FLORIDA ® NEW JERSEY NEWYORK ® PENNSYLVANIA ® MILAN,ITALY DMiller Shab LA □□□□□

Telephone: (846) 540-5505 B MILLERSHAH Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 ATTORNEYS AT LAW www.millershan.com

The Honorable Colleen McMahon February 18, 2022 Page 2

resulting value of such information to the public. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cur. 1995). Accordingly, public disclosure is often outweighed by the privacy interests of the party subject to disclosure in similar circumstances. See, e.g., GoSmile, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C., 769 F. Supp. 2d 630, 649-50 (S.D.N-Y. 2011) (granting motion to seal “highly proprietary material concerning the defendants’ marketing strategies, product development, costs and budgeting”); United States v. Wey, 256 F. Supp. 3d 355, 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (granting motion to seal “sensitive medical, financial, educational, and other personal information pertaining to non-patties”). Since Defendants have designated the documents sought to be sealed as “Confidential” pursuant to a provision of the protective order applicable to, inter alia, proprietary business information and other competitively sensitive information, there is good cause to grant Plaintiffs’ request. Should the Court grant this request, unredacted courtesy copies of Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and accompanying briefing and the attachments thereto will be delivered to the Court. Redacted versions of the briefing and any exhibits which may be filed under seal will be filed on the public record on February 18, 2022. We are available to discuss this request further at the Court’s convenience. Thank you for Your Honor’s consideration of this joint request of the parties. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Laurie Rubinow Laurie Rubinow LR:bf Counsel for Plaintiffs, the Plan, and the Proposed Class

CALIFORNIA © CONNECTICUT © FLORIDA ® NEW JERSEY # NEWYORK ® PENNSYLVANIA MILAN,TTALY OMiller Shab LLP □□