Multi-State Partnership for Prevention, LLC v. Deloitte Consulting, LLP

Opinion

Washington, DC Office Howard A, Newman, Esq.* (717 K STREET, NW; SUITE 906 1 _ howard@newmanlawoffices.com DE 006 NEW, . . LAW OFFI CES *Licensed in OR, DC, MD and FL 1050 SW OTH AVENUE SUITE 1100 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ ai □□□ PORTLAND. OREGON 97204 . En th □ □□□□ (503) 535-8040 en ay fae pe sie 866) 588 908 a May-19, 2025 phe oe ahs Facsimile: (866) 544-8040 “ os □ YES eek f af \ fT Dee ge of fon Pew ay \ Yaa Lo ght “ □□ VLA ECF ip yieeP “ sa fo pe AB pew gy Pi gg hr eg. | PI ee KF □□ \ wed wt Me é # ce OP Bae a □□ & Hon. P. Kevin Castel. GR OE og a f □□ the US. District Court for the Southern-District of New York Spee a eh a 500 Pearl Street; Courtroom TID ~~~. Op teh gp gO New York, New York 10007-1312 oe bn fiw By □□ (212) 805-0262 ge CastelINYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov TE fg [ae f Sree RE: Multi-State Partnership for Prevention, LLC v. Deloitte Consulting, LLP, et al. □□ Case No. 1:24-cv-09013-PKC (S.D.N.Y.) a, fi fe ge Letter Motion to Seal Limited Portions of Third Amended Complaint “ □□ ELE NS Dear Judge Castel: LEE fp é □□ I represent Multi-State Partnership for Prevention, LLC (“MSPP”) in the above- □ □ referenced matter, which alleges, inter alia, Deloitte’s misappropriation of MSPP’s trade secrets and confidential information. See generally DkT. No. 30 (‘Second Amended Complaint” or “SAC”’). On May 5, 2025, this Court granted MSPP leave to amend the SAC by today. DkT. No. 36. Also, this Court vacated an Initial Pre-Trial Conference (“IPC”) set for May 16, 2025, and ordered that the IPC would “be rescheduled after the determination of [an] anticipated motion to dismiss.” DKT. No. 36 (meaning that there is no next conference currently scheduled). MSPP requests that this Court enter an order sealing the identified limited portions of the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC’) (collectively, the “Motion”). This Court’s rules permit a motion to seal via letter motion (and without a pre- motion letter). IND. PRACT. CIV. CASES 3(A)(i)(i); see also id. at 5(B) (requiring public filing of letter motion that “must explain the particular reasons for seeking to file [particular confidential] information under seal”); S.D.N.Y. STANDING ORDER, 19-mc-00583 (providing for electronic filing of proposed sealed document only if a judge’s individual practices allow for same). This Motion does not include confidential information but does explicate the bases for filing the TAC under partial seal. IND. PRACT. Civ. CASES 5(B)(i). Pursuant to this Court’s rules, the proposed partially sealed TAC is being contemporaneously filed with and (on the docket) related to this Motion, and a redacted copy publicly filed. See id. at 5(B)(i1-1ii).

Hon. P. Kevin Castel Multi-State Partnership for Prevention, LLC v. Deloitte Consulting, LLP, et al. Case No. 1:24-cv-09013-PKC May 19, 2025 Reasons for Seeking to File Limited Portions of TAC Under Seal MSPP’s Third Amended Complaint includes specific identification of and details concerning various MSPP’s trade secrets and other confidential information, all of which were disclosed to, and as alleged in the TAC, misappropriated by Deloitte. MSPP’s redactions in its TAC are both minimal and necessary to protect from disclosure MSPP’s trade secrets, including its confidential information that is part of MSPP’s combination trade secret. The value of such information would be lost if it were made available to the public, including to MSPP’s business competitors. See Lexington Furniture Indus., Inc. v. Lexington Co., 2021 WL 1143694, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2021) (sealing of “sensitive business information [] outweighs the public’s right to access this information”); In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig., 2014 WL 12772236 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2014) (reiterating the “need to protect sensitive commercial information from disclosure to competitors seeking an advantage” justifies sealing). Indeed, this Court has recognized the propriety of sealing filings in analogous situations. Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lexeo Therapeutics, Inc. et. al., (Civ. No. 1:23-cv-09000-PKC- SDA), at Dkt. No. 218 (S.D.N.Y Feb. 21, 2025). The public interest in the proprietary details in the TAC is minimal and does not outweigh MSPP’s legitimate interest in protecting its competitively sensitive and economically valuable trade secrets and confidential information. MSPP does not seek to seal publicly available information. Based on the foregoing, MSPP respectfully requests that the Court enter an order sealing the limited portions of the TAC. Very truly yours, /s Howard A. Newman/ Howard A. Newman xc: Robert Friedman, Esq., Joshua Schlenger, Esq., and Sylvia Waghorne, Esq., counsel for Defendant, Deloitte Consulting LLP (via ECF)