Nespresso USA, Inc. v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc.

Opinion

VOL OUINT DOCUMENT Mayer Brown LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas MAYER | BROWN [ELECTRONICALLY FILED New York, NY 10020-1001 United States of America DOC #: DATE FILED:_ 2/4/2021 Foi □□□□□□ 1910 Februar y 3, 2021 mayerbrown.com BY ECF Gina M. Parlovecchio — Partner T: +1212 506 2522 Hon. Katharine H. Parker F: +1212 849 5522 United States Magistrate Judge GParlovecchio@mayerbrown.com United States District Court The Court respectfully requests that the Clerk « □□ trict of New York the Court place the documents filed at ECF No: New York, New York 10007-1312 98 and 111 under permanent seal, limiting access to the parties and the Court. Re: Nespresso USA, Inc. v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. APPLICATION GRANTED LLC, No. 1:19-cv-04223-LAP-KHP HY | f Dear Judge Parker: Hon. Katharine H. Parker, U.S.M.J. Date: February 4, 2021 Pursuant to Section II(d) of the Court’s Individual Practices, Nespresso USA, Inc. (“Nespresso”) respectfully requests permission to redact and file under seal select portions of Nespresso’s January 27, 2021 letter (the “Letter Motion’). The Letter Motion contains non-public, sensitive information related to confidential settlement negotiations. Nespresso has discussed and agreed upon the proposed redactions with Williams-Sonoma. Nespresso’s proposed redactions—which are limited to information related to confidential settlement negotiations and reflect similar information sealed in prior filings in this case (See, e.g., Dkts. 92; 103)—are consistent with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) and Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016). Pursuant to Lugosch, courts in the Second Circuit apply a three-step balancing test to determine whether to seal adocument. The initial inquiry is whether the material is a “‘judicial document[].’” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. Ifso, the Court must then assign a weight of the presumption of public access to the documents under the common law and First Amendment. The final step is to consider competing factors that counterbalance the weight of the presumption, such as the privacy interests of the party resisting disclosure. /d. at 119-20. The Letter Motion is a judicial document. The information that Nespresso seeks to seal, however, relates to material entitled to protection under Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Moreover, some of the material is deemed confidential under Section 2 of the SDNY Procedures of the Meditation Program. As such, the presumption of public access is low. See, e.g., Travelers Indem. Co. v. Liberty Medical Imaging Associates, P.C., No. 07-CV-2519 (CPS)(JMO), 2009 WL 962788, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2009) (finding “‘the parties’ mutual interest in maintaining the confidentiality of settlement negotiations outweighs the general public interest in disclosure of the particulars of judicial proceedings, especially given the apparent lack of prejudice to any particular party should the record remain sealed’). The presumption of public access is further outweighed by the fact that the redactions are narrowly tailored to apply to the specific information that was

Mayer Brown is a global services provider comprising an association of legal practices that are separate entities including Mayer Brown LLP (Illinois, USA), Mayer Brown International LLP (England), Mayer Brown (a Hong Kong partnership)

February 3, 2021 Page 2 addressed during settlement negotiations. Further, the parties have significant privacy interests in protecting information that was discussed during settlement negotiations. In light of the foregoing—and given the fact that Nespresso’s proposed redactions are appropriate and narrowly tailored to protect the parties’ interests—Nespresso respectfully requests that the Court redact and seal the identified portions therein. Consistent with Section III(d) of the Court’s Individual Practices, Nespresso will (a) publicly file the Letter Motion with the proposed redactions, and (b) electronically file under seal a copy of the unredacted document with the proposed redactions highlighted. Sincerely, By: /s/ Gina M. Parlovecchio A. John P. Mancini Gina M. Parlovecchio Jonathan W. Thomas 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020-1001 Tel.: (212) 506 2500 Fax: (212) 262 1910 Email: JMancini@mayerbrown.com Email : GParlovecchio@mayerbrown.com Email: JWThomas@mayerbrown.com Adam L. Hudes (pro hac vice) 1999 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Tel.: (202) 263 3298 Email: AHudes@mayerbrown.com Enclosures cc: All Counsel of Record (via ECF)