Rusis v. International Business Machines Corp.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: March 2, 2022
• Docket: 1:18-cv-08434
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

LICHTEN @&LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. HAROLD L. LICHTEN* ATTORNEYS AT LAW SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN*4° SARAH SCHALMAN-BERGEN* 729 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 2000 WWW.LLRLAW.COM MATTHEW W. THOMSON* BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02116 ADELAIDE H. PAGANO~ □ THOMAS P. FOWLER” TELEPHONE 617-994-5800 OLENA SAVYTSKA* FACSIMILE 617-994-5801 x ADMITTED IN MASSACHUSETTS ANNE KRAMER“ A ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA MICHELLE CASSORLA*** MEMO ENDORSED ADMITTED IN NEW YORK ZACHARY RUBIN*°*’* = ADMITTED IN PENNSYLVANIA ANASTASIA DOHERTY* * ADMITTED IN NEW JERSEY MATTHEW PATTON* ¢ ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT KRYSTEN CONNON’® ADMITTED IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MATTHEW CARRIERI* a ADMITTED IN TENNESSEE BENJAMIN J. WEBER oF COUNSEL USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED March 1, 2022 DOC #: VIA ECF DATE FILED:__ □□□□□□ The Honorable Valerie E. Caproni United States District Judge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: Rusis etal v. International Business Machines Corp. Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-08434 Plaintiffs’ Letter Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Their Opposition to Respondent IBM’s Procedural Motion for Summary Judgment as to Opt-Ins Asserting Constructive Discharge or Pretextual For-Cause Termination Claims Dear Judge Caproni: Pursuant to Your Honor’s Individual Practice 5(B)(ii), Plaintiffs hereby move for leave to file under seal their: (1) Opposition to Respondent IBM’s Procedural Motion for Summary Judgment as to Opt-Ins Asserting Constructive Discharge or Pretextual For-Cause Termination Claims (Dkt. 215); (2) Plaintiffs’ Local Rule 56.1 Responses to IBM’s Statement of Material Facts and Statement of Additional Material Facts in Opposition to |BM’s Procedural Motion for Summary Judgment as to Opt-Ins Asserting Constructive Discharge or Pretextual For-Cause Termination Claims;

LICHTEN @GWLISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

(3) The accompanying Declaration of Shannon Liss-Riordan with all exhibits. In their Opposition, Plaintiffs refer to documents and information that Respondent IBM has designated as “Confidential”. While Plaintiffs do not agree that this information should remain under seal considering the presumption of access discussed by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onandaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006), IBM has not agreed to de-designate this information. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court allow them initially to file their Opposition and accompanying documents under seal, in order to allow the Parties an opportunity to further confer as to which portions of the briefing and exhibits must be filed under seal or with limited redactions, and which portions can be filed on the public docket. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Shannon Liss-Riordan Shannon Liss-Riordan LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Application GRANTED. Defendant must identify by filing a sealed letter on the docket what information, if any, should be redacted from Plaintiff's filings in opposition to the two relevant motions described in Plaintiff's letters at Dockets 235 and 239 not later than Friday, March 4, 2022. Defendant is advised that, given the strong presumption of access elucidated in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onandaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006), the Court imposes a high burden for allowing redactions on the public docket. SO ORDERED.

3/2/22 HON. VALERIE CAPRONI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE