Lodging Solutions, LLC v. Miller

Opinion

USDC SDNY ( ) DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED □ orrick DATE FILED:_ ] 1/23/2020 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Columbia Center 1152 15th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005-1706 +1 202 339 8400 orrick.com VIA ECF Robert Stern January 29, 2020 rstern@orick.com D +1 202 339-8542 F +1 202 339-8500 The Hon. Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge Southern District of New York AO Centre Street New York, NY 1007 Re: Lodging Solutions, LLC v. Miller et al., 19-cv-10806-AJN - Letter-Motion Seeking Leave for Redacting Preliminary Injunction Hearing Transcripts Dear Judge Nathan, Pursuant to Rule 4.B. of the Court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, Plaintiff in the above-captioned case requests to make redactions to the transcripts of the Preliminary Injunction Hearing that occurred on December 17 and December 19, 2019. This Court allows redactions when essential to preserve an interest greater than public’s interest in accessing judicial documents and when such redactions are “narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006). Determining whether redaction is warranted depends on (1) whether the document is a judicial document, which triggers the presumption of public access, (11) the weight of the presumption of public access, and (111) the countervailing factors against public access. Jd. at 119-120. This Court has “considerable discretion” to determine that certain information may be withheld from the public. Geller v. Branic Int’l Reality Corp., 212 F.3d 734, 738 (2d Cir. 2000). A judicial document is one “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process,” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119, or that has the tendency to influence a District Court’s rulmg. Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49 (2d Cir. 2019). Even where a document triggers the presumption in favor of public access, such presumption carries little weight if the document or information does not directly affect an adjudication. Collado v. City of New York, 193 F. Supp. 3d 286, 291 (S.D.N-Y. 2016) (redactions or sealing of nonpublic

orrick information warranted where the information was irrelevant to the motion for summary judgment). The presumption of public access to judicial documents must be balanced against countervailing factors like “privacy interests.” the need to protect “sensitive and proprietary information,” and judicial efficiency. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. Documents and information “traditionally considered private rather than public” are afforded greater protections. Dependable Sales & Serv., Inc. v. TrueCar, Inc., 311 F. Supp. 3d 653, 666 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). “(T]he privacy interests of innocent third parties . . . should weigh heavily in a court’s balancing equation.” United States v. Gatto, No. 17-CR-686 (LAK), 2019 WL 4194569, at *6 (S.D.N_Y. Sept. 3, 2019) (finding that disclosing text and email communications and redacted information in a sentencing memorandum not warranted because of third party privacy interests and the information being immaterial to the court’s adjudication). The minimal redactions 1n the transcripts are warranted. Plaintiff makes these redactions to exclude (1) API’s client names, (2) names of employees of API’s clients not relevant to this action, and (3) sensitive business information regarding API. This information is not material to the Court’s adjudication here and is sensitive business information. These redactions are narrowly tailored to protect API’s business and commercial interests because they are limited to sensitive business information and identifying information of third parties with no connection to this case. For the reasons stated above, we request permission to redact portions of the December 17 and December 19 hearing transcripts. Respectfully submitted, For the reasons stated in the Court's /s/ Robert M. Stern Order of January 15, 2020, the request to redact portions of the Robert M. Stern December 17 and December 19 Tiffany Rowe hearing transcripts is GRANTED. Matthew Reeder (pro hac vice) Plaintiff shall file the redacted ORRICK, HERRINGTON &

SO ORDERED. Counsel for API

Na Quali SO ORDERED. 11/23/2020 ALISON J. NATHAN, U.S.D].