Plaut v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

Opinion

1285 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS UNIT 5201, FORTUNE FINANCIAL CENTER ALLA NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019-6064 5 DONGSANHUAN ZHONGLU 2243 | DOCUMENT CHAOYANG DISTRICT, BEIJING 100020, CHINA SUL (212) 373-3000 ( fs By ( TELEPHONE (86-10) 5828-6300 ius ELECTRONICALLY FILED RANDOLPH PAUL (1246-1956) SUITES 3601 - 3606 & 3610 sala! DOC #: SIMON H. RIFKIND (1950-1995) Soe, en Aner | TE LOUIS S. WEISS (1927-1950) GERA F WHARTON (1927-1977) ISVS ee Wat! DATE FILED: 7/27/2023 TELEPHONE (852) 2846-0300 JESS DAVID CARMONA ERVSTAL L. PARKER aupencasTis —GEPERAEY EE, REPIO® KINSEY □□□□ 10 NOBLE STREET WILLIAM A. CLAREMAN DANIELLE □□□ PENHALL DIRECT DIAL NUMBER LONDON EC2vV 7JU, UNITED KINGDOM YAHONNES CLEARY | JESSICA □□□□□□□□□ PEGE ONE (re 7267 i600 JAY COHEN VALERIE E RADWANER (212) 373-3148 GHRISTOPHER J. CUMMINGS GARLL REISNER 535 MISSION STREET, 24TH FLOOR THOMAS V. DE LA BASTIDE I LORIN L REISNER raceme Sees eee TEE” Eo (212) 492-0148 seceeeatce” SARE □□□□ FUKOKU SEIMEI BUILDING DIRECT E-MAIL ADDRESS 2-2 UCHISAIWAICHO 2-CHOME BNDREW eC FINCH” EAABETH. SACKSTEDE! CHIYODA-KU, TOKYO 100-0011, JAPAN BRAD J JETER □□ □□□□□□ rsperling@paulweiss.com TEEEEHONE: (Si Snoi7s810% PETER E FIscH KENNETH M. SCHNEIDER VAR L'CHNAN ren BoRaTy □□□□□□□□□ oe MANUEL S FREY BRIAN □□□□□□□□ 77 KING STREET WEST, SUITE 3100 7 PO. BOX 226 KENNETH A GALLS BANDON □□□□□□□□□□□ TononTo, ontaRIOMSK 113 BRAIHLSIERTcrwenta KUBRRN □□□□□□ MATTHEW 6. GOLDSTEIN JOSHUA □□□□□□ ROBERTO J. GONZALEZ* MEGAN SPELMAN zoorkerneer.nw EATHERINE Sg SOSDARL □□□□ WASHINGTON, DC 20006-1047 STARE Senger SA EEC □□□□□□ TELEPHONE (202) 223-7300 J 1 25 2023 500 DELAWARE seme SUITE 200 feck GReerss™ Bastar □□

Y4?> POST OFFICE BOX 32 TAN M: Mazcert nN AURA □□ TURANO WILMINGTON, DE tseas-c0s2 BRIAN SHERMAN □□□ □□□□□□□ TELEPHONE (302) 655-4410 MICHELE HIRSHMAN JEREMY M, VEIT JARRETT R. HOFFMAN LIZA M. VELAZQUEZ ROBERT HOLO MICHAEL VOGEL CHRISTOPHER HOPKINS RAMY J. WAHBEH AMRAN HUSSEIN LAWRENCE 6. WEE LORETTA A. IPPOLITO THEODORE V. WELLS, JR. JAREN JANGHORBANI CINDSEY L. WIERSMA BRIAN M. JANSON STEVEN J. WILLIAMS VIA ECF Sean RAneenGs, □□□□□□□□□□□ Hon. K: : PATRICK N- RARSNITZ JULIA TARVER MASON WoC on. Katharine H. Parker SOHN KENNEDY STACI YABLON . . ROBERT A. KILLIP JORDAN E □□□□□□ United States Magistrate Judge KIMPLER Rave N, YOSHINO . . . JEFFREY L. KOCHIAN TONG YU United States District Court ALAN W. KORNBERG TAURIE □□ □□□□□□□ Southern District of New York BRIAN KRAUSE. TTROBERT ZOCHOWSKI, JR. Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse *NOT ADMITTED TO THE NEW YORK BAR 500 Pearl St., Courtroom 17D New York, New York 10007 Re: Sjunde AP-Fonden v. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. et al., No. 18-cv-12084 (VSB) Dear Judge Parker: We represent Defendant The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (“Goldman”) in the above- referenced matter. Pursuant to Rule III.d of Your Honor’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, Goldman respectfully requests that the Court redact the name of the Goldman in-house counsel who was named in the Court’s Opinion and Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. 263). Plaintiff does not oppose this request. In connection with this dispute which was the subject of the Court’s order, the Court allowed Goldman to redact from public filings, among other things, the names of Goldman employees who are not named as defendants or implicated in any wrongdoing. (Dkt. 234, 256.) The Court’s Order, which denied Plaintiff's request for production of privileged materials, includes the name of the Goldman in-house attorney which the Court has previously permitted to remain under seal.

PAWL, WEISS, RIFRINI, WrIAKILON & UOAKRARIOVWN LL

For the same reasons set forth in its prior motions to seal (Dkt. 205, 230, 238), and in this Court’s Orders (Dkt. 234, 256), Goldman respectfully requests that the Court expeditiously redact the name of the Goldman in-house attorney who was mentioned in the Court’s Order. We stand ready to answer any questions from the Court.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Robert Y. Sperling Robert Y. Sperling

ce: All Counsel of Record (via ECF) denied. The common law and the First Amendment accord a presumption of public access to judici Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006). The public's presumptive right to judicial documents is “potent and fundamental,” Mirlis v. Greer, 952 F.3d 51, 58 (2d Cir. 2020) (citation In considering a motion to seal, the court undertakes a three-part analysis. First, the court must determi the document is a judicial document. Second, the court must determine the weight of the presumption th ches to the document. The weight given the presumption of access is “governed by the role of the material at in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the courts.” Id. at 49. “The strongest presumption attaches where the documents ‘determin|e] litigants’ rights,’ and [the presumption] is weaker where the ‘documents play only a negligible role in the of Article III duties.'"” Olson v. Major League Baseball, 29 F.4th 59, 89-90 (2d Cir. 2022) (citations Third, once the Court has determined the weight to accord the presumption of public access, it must whether competing considerations outweigh the presumption. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. Regardless of that must be accorded to the presumption, the court must make “specific, on the record findings” that seali “to preserve higher values,” and “is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” /d. the Court previously determined that, as to the parties’ prior letters and the Case Management Conference scripts, the weight of the presumption of public access was relatively low due to the minimal role of the materi sue in the exercise of Article Ill judicial power, and accordingly the Court permitted the parties to redact certair rmation, including the name of a Goldman attorney who is not a party in this case. However, the document in here is a Court order. The Court finds that the weight of the presumption of public access to the full cont Order is high, and the public's interest in the full scope of the Court's Order outweighs the private interest o in keeping his name confidential, particularly in light of the fact that the attorney's employment with is public knowledge, and because he has not been implicated in any wrongdoing in connection with this The parties have not proffered any meaningful harm that would result from the public disclosure of this rmation. Accordingly, the motion to redact the attorney's name from the Court's order is denied.

ORDERED:

Qiwrk + fake

KATHARINE H. PARKER STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7/27/2023