Pennolino v. Central Productions LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: September 21, 2022
• Docket: 1:22-cv-05051
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

KAUFF McGUIRE MARGOLIS LLP 950 THIRD AVENUE ® FOURTEENTH FLOOR New York, NY 10022 MARJORIE B. KULAK eee 213) 6141936. New York DIRECT DIAL: (212) 909-0721 Los ANGELES DIRECT FAX: (212) 909-3521 KULAK@KMM.COM WWW.KMM.COM

September 20, 2022

The request is GRANTED, and Defendant may redact Plaintiff's home VIA ECF address and salary in any public filing of the employment agreement. Hon. Lewis J. Liman, U.S.D.J. eng HP. United States District Court, a — J. LE Pics, Southern District of New York ~ LEWIS. LIMAN 500 Pearl Street, Room 1620 United States District Judge New York, NY 10007 9/21/2022 Re: — Pennolino v. Central Productions LLC Case No. 1:22-cv-05051 KM&M File No. 08327.9233 Dear Judge Liman: Our firm is counsel to Defendant Central Productions LLC (“Defendant”) in the referenced matter. On September 23, 2022, Defendant will file its partial motion to dismiss Plaintiff Paul Pennolino’s (“Plaintiff”) Amended Complaint. In support of this motion, Defendant may submit a copy of the agreement regarding Plaintiff's employment, which is referenced in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. Pursuant to the Court’s Individual Practices In Civil Cases, Defendant requests permission to redact the following information from Plaintiff's agreement: (1) Plaintiff's home address; and (2) the amount of Plaintiff’s salary. 1. Plaintiff's home address: Defendant seeks to redact Plaintiff's home address from the agreement out of respect for Plaintiffs privacy. Plaintiff’s home address is not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims in this action. 2. Plaintiff's salary: Defendant seeks to redact Plaintiff's salary from the agreement because Plaintiffs salary, as a former director for The Daily Show, is confidential and sensitive information, and the public disclosure of this salary would place Defendant at an unfair competitive advantage with respect to its hiring and staffing. The amount of Plaintiff’s salary is not relevant to, and will not be cited or referred to in, Defendant’s motion. Further, Defendant

4885-5397-8932.1

INITVICoOIV aE AUFF Mc GUIRE MARGOLIS LLP

Hon. Lewis J. Liman, U.S.D.J. September 20, 2022 Page 2

will not be requesting in its partial motion to dismiss that the Court rule on any matters relating to the amount of Plaintiff's salary. While “[t]here is a common law presumption in favor of permitting public access to judicial documents” (1.e., “those documents ‘relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process’”), the “court balances this common law presumption of access against competing comparisons, including ‘the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.’” GoSMiLE, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M._D. P.C., 769 F. Supp. 2d 630, 649 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Lugosch vy. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-120 (2d Cir.2006)). Here, the requested redactions are narrowly tailored, and the grounds for the redactions (1.e., protection of privacy interests and sensitive, irrelevant, personnel information) rebut any presumptions of public access. Indeed, “[w]here testimony or documents play only a negligible role in the performance of Article II duties, the weight of the presumption [of access] is low .. . .” Standard Inv. Chartered, Inc. v. Fin. Indus. Regul. Auth., Ind., 347 F. App'x 615, 617 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirming decision to permit redactions of confidential business information where the “District Court noted that the protected information sheds almost no light on either the substance of the underlying proceeding or the basis for the Court's decision”) (quotation and citation omitted); see also Playtex Prod., LLC vy. Munchkin, Inc., No. 14-CV-1308, 2016 WL 1276450, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2016) (granting motion to seal a portion of a summary judgment motion which referenced confidential and sensitive business information to protect the movant from competitive harm). Pursuant to the Court’s rules, a copy of the agreement with the proposed redactions is being securely filed with this letter. The proposed redactions are highlighted in yellow and appear on pages | and 2 of this agreement. A redacted copy of the agreement will also be publicly filed with this letter. Defendant’s counsel has conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel and Plaintiff does not object to the redaction of his home address and salary from the agreement. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Marjorie B. Kulak Marjorie B. Kulak Enclosures ce: Anthony Harwood, Esq., Counsel for Plaintiff