Precision Medicine Group, LLC v. Blue Matter, LLC

Opinion

Jonathan Stoler Eric Raphan Adam Pekor SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10112 (212) 653-8700

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PRECISION MEDICINE GROUP, LLC, PRECISIONADVISORS GROUP, INC., and PRECISION MEDICINE GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., Case 1:20-cv-02974

Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED

v. NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL

BLUE MATTER, LLC,

Defendant.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the annexed Renewed Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal; the Declaration of Jonathan Stoler, dated February 27, 2023, with exhibits annexed thereto; and upon all of the papers and proceedings herein, Plaintiffs Precision Medicine Group, LLC, PRECISIONadvisors Group, Inc., and Precision Medicine Group Holdings, Inc., (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) by and through their undersigned counsel, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP, will move this Court before the Honorable Paul G. Gardephe, on the date designated by the Court, at Courtroom 705 at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse in the Southern District of New York located at 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007, for an order permitting Plaintiffs to file under seal (1) Exhibit 56 to Plaintiffs’ Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. Nos. 149-14 through Dkt. 149-19); (2) Exhibit 73 to Plaintiffs’ Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. 149-30), (3) Exhibit 77 to Plaintiffs’ Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. 149-31), (4) Exhibit 78 to Plaintiffs’ Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. 149-32), (5) Exhibit 82 to Plaintiffs’ Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. 149-33), (6) Exhibit 84 to Plaintiffs’ Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. 149-34), (7) Exhibit D to Plaintiffs’ Counter Statement to Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. 160-3), (8) Exhibit E to Plaintiffs’ Counter Statement to

Rule 56.1 Statement Dkt. 160-4, (9) Exhibit F to Plaintiffs’ Counter Statement to Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. 160-5), (10) Exhibit G to Plaintiffs’ Counter Statement to Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. 160-6), (11) Exhibit H to Plaintiffs’ Counter Statement to Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. 160-7), (12) Exhibit I to Plaintiffs’ Counter Statement to Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. 160-8), (13) Exhibit J to Plaintiffs’ Counter Statement to Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. 160-9), (14) Exhibit K to Plaintiffs’ Counter Statement to Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. 160-10), (15) Exhibit L to Plaintiffs’ Counter Statement to Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. 160-11), (16) Exhibit M to Plaintiffs’ Counter Statement to Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. 160-12), (17) Exhibit N to Plaintiffs’ Counter Statement to Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. 160-13), (18) Exhibit P to Plaintiffs’ Counter Statement to Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. 160-14), (19) Exhibit R to Plaintiffs’ Counter Statement to Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. 160-

15), (20) Exhibit 20 to Defendant Blue Matter’s Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. 171-3), (21) Exhibit 17 to Plaintiffs’ Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. Nos. 149-7 through 149-11), and (22) Exhibit 45 to Plaintiffs’ Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. 149-12), and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT counsel for Defendants Blue Matter, LLC do not oppose this motion. Dated: New York, New York February 28, 2023 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

By: /s/Jonathan Stoler Jonathan Stoler Eric Raphan Adam Pekor 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10112 Telephone: (212) 653-8700 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ENDOSRED: The parties have filed renewed motions to seal or redact large swaths of documents filed in ection with their cross-motions for summary judgment in this trade secrets dispute. (See Dkt. Nos. 182, 184, Defendant’s motion (Dkt. No. 184) and non-party Jose Jaregui’s motion (Dkt. No. 188) are granted in their Plaintiffs’ motion is granted as to the documents listed in the table titled “Category 1” in Plaintiffs’ of law. (Pltf. Br. (Dkt. No. 185) at 3-6) the documents listed in the table titled “Category 2” in Plaintiffs’ memorandum of law, Plaintiffs seek to seal two documents containing sensitive and confidential financial information concerning its acquisition of ISA ar market access business, including deferred consideration payment methodologies.” (Id. at 8,11) Th “an equity purchase agreement” for Precision’s purchase of another company. (Dkt. Nos. 149-7-149-11) The nd is a letter from Plaintiffs’ founder to the founder of the target company. (Dkt. No. 149-12) The two total over 150 pages in length. As to this information, Plaintiffs represent that the “documents contain financial information concerning Precision’s acquisition of ISA and the Company’s market access including deferred consideration payment methodologies.” (PItf. Br. (Dkt. No. 185) at 8) Plaintiffs do not how the disclosure of these materials would lead to “competitive disadvantage” or why “the risk of [such] harm outweighs the public right of access.” Rowe v. Google LLC, 2022 WL 4467628, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (citing Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006)). Plaintiffs argue that “documents containing these categories of information are routinely sealed.” (PlItf. Br. (Dkt. No. 185) at 11 is inadequate. Even assuming that some of the information contained within these documents could properly be Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that their request to seal these documents in their entirety is “narrowly to achieve” a cognizable higher purpose under relevant case law. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124. Plaintiffs’ motion is denied as to the documents listed in the table titled “Category 2” in Plaintiff's of law will be unsealed. of Court is directed to terminate the motions (Dkt. Nos. 182, 184, 188) and to unseal and make visible to the documents at Dkt. Nos. 149-7, 149-8, 149-9, 149-10, 149-11, and 149-12. ORDERED. Ln nh G. Gardephe States District Judge Date: September 21, 2023 3.