Kaiser Aluminum Warrick, LLC v. US Magnesium LLC
Opinion
sa . mwe.com % Andrew B. Kratenstein oF Attorney at Law OO 8 Akratenstein@mwe.com
O bh. 2. [be Laila ace ba June 5, 2025 c | bap ee be lof ~ □□ VIA ECF (ba nef WO 3, Vere 2ek □□ bseuf tne f cia rrsrey Vere, Corre □□□□ The Honorable John G. Koeitl tot Vy □□ United States District Court Southern District of New York “L2ciz#4* rst □□ Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse fom igo. Fuse □□□ □□□ 500 Pearl Street, Room 14A Wkingebor, i ete □ New York, New York 10007-1312 hedouw Be bbtertepun~ wie be Re: Kaiser Aluminum Warrick, LLC v. US Magnesium’ LIC, Case No. iien □□ ' Dear Judge Koeitl: Ket ie xt We represent Plaintiff Kaiser Aluminum Warrick, LLC (“Kaiser”) in the abové-réferenced action. □□ We write pursuant to this Court’s standing order 19-mc-00583 and Individual Practice Rule VI to identify Gly the exhibits that Kaiser requests to be filed under seal in connection with Plaintiff's Motion Jn Limine to Preclude Evidence Related to its Operations and Force Majeure Declaration (the “Motion”), including certain exhibits attached to the Declaration of Andrew B. Kratenstein, dated June 5, 2025 (the “Kratenstein Declaration”). Kaiser has identified each document to be filed under seal on Exhibit A of this letter motion, along with the bases for such designations. Kaiser respectfully submits that good cause exists to seal these documents. Each of the exhibits identified for sealing was designated either “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” pursuant to the Protective Order (ECF No. 24), and consist of “commercially sensitive and confidential business information” and “confidential terms of competitively sensitive contracts”. fuboTV Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., No. 1:24-CV-01363-MMG, 2025 WL 19322, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2025). This Court previously granted the parties’ applications to seal similar information in connection with Kaiser’s earlier summary judgment filings. (ECF Nos. 158-59 and 177.) Confidential documents pertaining to sensitive business operations that, if made public, would commercially or competitively disadvantage the disclosing party, are among those this Court has consistently recognized as justifying protection from the public view when used in litigation. See Matter of Upper Brook Companies, No. 22-MC-97 (PKC), 2023 WL 172003, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2023) (“A presumption of access may be outweighed by a party’s interest in ‘protecting confidential business information’ from disclosure that would subject it to ‘financial harm’ or a ‘significant competitive advantage.’”) (quoting Standard Inv. Chartered, Inc. v. Fin. Indus. Regul. Auth., Ind., 347 F. App’x 615, 617 (2d Cir. 2009)); see also Standard v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth., Ind., 347 F. App’x 615, 617 McDermott One Vanderbilt Avenue New York NY 16017-3852 Tel +4212 547 5400 Fax +1212 547 5444 . US practice conducted through McDermott Will & Emery LLP. Will & Emery
June 5, 2025 Page 2 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirming district court’s sealing on grounds that the party’s “interest in protecting confidential business information outweighs the qualified First Amendment presumption of public access”); WJ. Deutsch & Sons Ltd. v. Diego Zamora, S.A., No. 1:21-CV-1 1003-LTS, 2022 WL 890184, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2022) (granting a sealing request where “disclosure of this confidential business information would subject [movant] to a competitive disadvantage”). In short, Kaiser’s proposed sealing is narrowly tailored to protect Kaiser’s non-public operational information and contractual terms that, if made public, could cause severe harm to Kaiser. Accordingly, Kaiser respectfully requests that the Court permit Kaiser to file the exhibits to the Kratenstein Declaration (listed In Exhibit A hereto) under seal. We thank the Court for its time and consideration. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Andrew B, Kratenstein Andrew B. Kratenstein cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF)
q 6 1s ‘B a 3 a S 3 a E g 2 = □ E So Baad on Oo 3 oS ec ed 8 3 2 |E 6 = |. = 2 3 E =2 |e |. a, oS 5 ge Oo & ld se & 5 @ | 218 |g Eas oS 3 < |s a4 18 3 real 3 qo □□ a < 3 o's a oe o peedsct Es Ss wed ci oO 3 36 eal a, |= a 5 6 TS Ba 45 & |8 [2 82 3 5 3 5 |8 e |e |6 go |e 3 a |@ |8& s |5 (8 Eg] © ae |s a B 18 Be | 2 \2 a a5 |S 18 |e 183 2 |2 Fels ae 8. a bo ae a ws M4 Se. 25 8/8 3 5 a a 3 8. □ ass 832/38 is ls |S al ks 5 HEIs 2 (21 5 a a gee |BEES an & > Po ale >, & oO pes "eS Soe wi a > (|e | be a bee Pa oO iD a 5 w "s a a D QR fel o 2 a Solu □ ¢ ie {2 Se 3 S iz a EB |e ee S Q = = g oO = i a a “wa a a 2 # a oO Bi (2 2 2 £8 (| jale =| 8 5 _ = a= oS a 3 8 QO |Z a jal o = Mm jo 4 ae 2 5 Toya fe | |é aa oO 4 oo . — SOs ALS | od a Sg 9 Hs ee vd Bie 3 |2 2 2 of ; |g la 5 18 Sf Fee : : =a a o a ¢ A ~ Qa a eg |e bee!
&§ |§ |&8 € . ‘eo Ss a ls = |S c o 2 □ a = a = a So |e 2 c Qo 3 Ga Ss == eh 3 SZ |e AR os 4 3 E E ec ‘a a 3 ‘3 cy 2 o = is 5. § E Og fi EE is ele □□ 5 a 5 6 8 a = [8 48 ‘a = 3 & SB 1s e 15 ele Eg = a 2 = B a || mo = oO a i Oo fu 2s s 8 ‘3 a |& | is pore S = □□ oO ou, 5 o S|: as □ ole 6S ce |e |e |8 2 Eee| Bx ‘3 = a a a a“ ‘x Eau g 9 o o wv os 26 i a ° a |s m4 8 Es 18 5 5 (8 je |g Ee) ga ° ie aA a 4 o| 8 Qo he a ‘a nd ee oO Ho o = ee ye 3 a A 2 oS a a Lae] 2 a 8 a = as |g a ie [2 mal & CIS aoe oO n a Slee 2 a |e a pees ‘a a SS wn > Lee "x a a pee 3 3 □□ @ 3 le a ‘5 5 a 3 Soe s is 5 □ & & \§ = 3 a = a 5 3 = 3 2 |< [5 F ala = a i 5 < “ a ee] oo = a Oo O ol ABS a 3 Oo > is : 2 bee = o O ‘ ao ee . □ i | S oO “A od mm = 3 Als fe od a 3 a 2 oR iB 5 UIs IS a |A a rd fu ; 3 A la =e |e Eos . 2 x a q 2 Lilo od 3 od A ot 3 g a || □ 2 a A 5 2 {2 e |g $28 Lig 3 A 3 IS | | Ee] o 2 uy D 4 x Fel3 ‘3 a 5 & ca 8 a ‘3 B 2 □ wo iad PEO a 3 = = a EE a 2 wv iS a 8 3 30 32 2 a J =e |2 |e ae 3 = if le □ Bag S| 5 a i¢ a |s =| J 0 Sy, □□ g mH («aA 3S 2 iw 3 2 |8% 26 |a oS % = © 6 a9 oso 1A “sy © 3 2 Ses lyZ <2 Ze |x 3 = iS 4 ee “oo 2 Fle 2 IES 58 a2 |g3 a2 |g FF i “Oe no ls = a os > bn | a © Fees es Qo = go |S S 2 36 6 8 3 A Llgs2 <352 22 [oz ae |3 |g 218 Eee o i □ Eas a ne G 5 ee oO oO o 188s o2E8 2s Ba 8 Sp A» |S iss a oo as Ad mo | ~ oo Eo oy ax s = o nO Td 2a je32 te (2 oa 33 IS oa) 3 8 ‘—=l€23 BE Ea < vp “Oo elu 8 26 Balsa a= os oa 5 af » wi alfale els 5 oO 5 4 4 On al-5 2 322° a ees oC 4 . aol a) bd of Pal As a SE lS 3. 2ese2s 2A 2 □ (86s Ee falSs e ESSECSG SG anes lfm a Zased eles av pe ola 28 2 ESA le 2 geese csi S25 218 3 Blo ae a q 3 alg Bia & Fle 2 cs Oo 5 ala Bele as on aes| Op 3 b old B/S os 5 Ble as aaa? 27 8.6 3/8 □□ ays 2b Seas ie bees Pa a GS A o 4 ss S82 4/83 ga 35 □ Sle 2 oO ace ot Heal oO
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Kaiser Aluminum Warrick, LLC v. US Magnesium LLC (Kaiser Aluminum Warrick, LLC v. US Magnesium LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.