Sjunde Ap-Fonden and The Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Electric Company

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: January 31, 2022
• Docket: 1:17-cv-08457
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

KESSLERTOPAZ □□ MELTZERCHECK up ATTORNEYS AT LAW Writer’s Direct Dial: (484) 270-1465 E-Mail: snirmul@ktme.com Please reply to the Radnor Office January 28, 2022 VIA ECF The Honorable Jesse M. Furman United States District Court Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: Sjunde AP-Fonden, et al. v. Gen. Elec. Co., et al., Case No. 17-cv-8457 (JMF) Dear Judge Furman: Pursuant to Rules 7(B) and 7(C) of Your Honor’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases (“Individual Practices”), Standing Order 19-MC-583, and Section 6 of the Southern District of New York Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions, Lead Plaintiff Sjunde AP-Fonden and additional plaintiff The Cleveland Bakers & Teamsters Pension Fund (“Plaintiffs”) respectfully seek leave to file with redactions their contemporaneously filed letter seeking leave to file a reply (“Proposed Reply”) in support of their letter motion regarding text messages (ECF No. 284), and to file under seal the exhibits attached thereto, which have been designated by Defendants as “Confidential” pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 227). Plaintiffs asked Defendants whether they would withdraw their confidentiality designations on the materials referenced in and attached to the Proposed Reply. As of the time of this filing, Defendants have not agreed to withdraw any of their designations. Accordingly, pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order, references to such material in Plaintiffs’ submission must be sealed and redacted where appropriate. Pursuant to Rules 7(C)(11) and (111) of Your Honor’s Individual Practices, Plaintiffs have contemporaneously filed the Proposed Reply with redactions, and the exhibits have been filed under seal, on ECF. For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant their request for leave to file the Proposed Reply with redactions and the exhibits thereto under seal, pending the Court’s evaluation of a letter submission by Defendants explaining and justifying the need to redact or seal these documents pursuant to Rule 7(C)(i) of Your Honor’s Individual Practices.

280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087 T. 610-667-7706 610-667-7056 info@ktmc.com Cine SGancnmea Gtroat Suita 72EN Gan Erancicen Califarnia QA1NA T ATEG_ANN_2NNN EC ATEC_ANN_2NN1 infaMltmer ram

The Honorable Jesse M. Furman @) January 28, 2022 KESSLERTOPAZ Page 2 MELTZERCHECK ws Respectfully Submitted, ff, 7 fi iF lavacd (Orne C Sharan Nirmul cc: All counsel of record (via ECF)

The motion to seal is granted temporarily. That said, mere agreement between the parties to keep a document confidential is not sufficient to keep a “judicial document” sealed or redacted. See, e.g., United States v. Well. Fargo Bank N.A., No. 12-CV-7527 (JMF), 2015 WL 3999074, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2015) (citing cases). Thus, if any party believes that the materials at issue should remain sealed or redacted, that party shall file a le brief, within three days and not to exceed three pages, showing why doing so is consistent with the presumptic in favor of public access to judicial documents. See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 286. SO ORDERED. G January 31, 2022