UrthTech LLC v. Gojo Industries, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided August 21, 2025·No. 1:22-cv-06727·Unknown

Opinion

OFLU OO Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP Attorneys at Law The Calfee Building calexander@calfee.com eT 216.622.8634 Direct 316.622.8200 Phone August 21, 2025 Application to seal provisionally GRANTED. By ECF SO ORDERED. Dated: 8/21/25 Honorable P. Kevin Castel, U.S.D.J. United States District Court for the Bowen Southern District of New York P. Kevin Caste United States Courthouse United States District Judge 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: UrthTech LLC et. al vy. GOJO Industries, Inc Case 1:22-cv-06727-PKC Dear Judge Castel: Our firm, along with Kritzer McPhee LLP, represent Defendant GOJO Industries, Inc. (“GOJO”) in the above-referenced action. GOJO respectfully moves the Court for an order that the highly-confidential GOJO-created Power Point produced at UrthTech_0012459 and marked as Awad Dep. Ex. 25 be sealed and unavailable on the public docket in each instance in which it was filed, including at ECF 171-10 and at ECF 174-4, wherein it was labelled as Exhibit 6 and constituted Pages 75-124 of that document. These documents were recently filed publicly by the Pro Se Intake Unit at the request of proposed intervenor Dr. Aziz Awad. See Letters at ECF 171, 174. Dr. Awad had provided this document, along with others, in a zip file, to the Pro Se Intake Unit, with a request to upload them to the docket. However, GOJO never authorized the filing of this document on the public docket. When GOJO learned that Dr. Awad had included this document in the zip folder he sent to the Pro Se Intake Unit, GOJO’s counsel attempted to reach the Pro Se Intake unit to request that the file not be put on the public docket, but the email bounced. See Exhibit A hereto. Counsel for GOJO subsequently requested that Dr. Awad reach out directly to the Pro Se Intake unit to request that it not be filed publicly. /d. While it appears that Dr. Awad did make this request, id., the document at issue was ultimately filed publicly and remains on the public docket at Document 171-10, and at Pages 75-124 of ECF 174-4. There is ample basis for the relief requested here by GOJO. This Court recently granted GOJO’s motion to seal certain high value GOJO information of the type at issue here, see ECF 167, and the same rationale for granting that motion applies here. In view of the standard set forth in Lugosch vy. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006), this request is limited to sealing the document at issue, which is a 50-page Power Point that was created by GOJO and includes certain

higher value information about its products, product testing, and other internal business matters, such as sensitive competitive and strategic analysis. “Notwithstanding the presumption of access under both the common law and the First Amendment, the documents may be kept under seal if ‘countervailing factors’ in the common law framework or ‘higher values’ in the First Amendment framework so demand.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006). Indeed, “the presumption of public access can be overcome when the disclosure of information would reveal trade secrets, confidential business strategy, financials, and other sensitive information that could place a party at a competitive disadvantage.” Sterling Select IT Advisory LLC v. Argus Info. & Advisory Servs., LLC, No. 1:23-cv-02939-JPC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38553, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb 27, 2025); see also GoSmile, Inc. v. Levine, 769 F. Supp. 2d 630, 649 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (“When litigation requires disclosure of trade secrets, the court may disclose certain materials only to the attorneys involved.”). Under the Lugosch standard, the content of this PowerPoint contains the “higher value” necessary to overcome the presumption of public access. Providing public access to these materials would grant significant advantage to GOJO’s competitors who do not know or use it. In view of the foregoing, GOJO respectfully requests that the Court order that the document filed at ECF 171-10 and at Pages 75-124 of ECF 174-4 be sealed and unavailable to the public. GOJO’s counsel is available at the Court’s convenience should Your Honor have any questions or wish to discuss these requests. We thank the Court for its consideration and assistance in this matter. Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Andrew W. Alexander John Cipolla (Pro Hac Vice) Andrew W. Alexander (Pro Hac Vice) Chet Bonner (Pro Hac Vice) Nicholas Zalany (Pro Hac Vice) CALFEE, HALTER & GRISWOLD LLP The Calfee Building 1405 East Sixth Street Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1607 Telephone: 216-622-8634 Fax: 216-241-0816 jcipolla@calfee.com aalexander@calfee.com cbonner@calfee.com nzalany@calfee.com Noam J. Kritzer KRITZER MCPHEE LLP 256 Columbia Turnpike

Edison Suite, Unit 204 Florham Park, New Jersey 07932 (973) 679-7272 nkritzer@kmpatentlaw.com Ryan S. McPhee KRITZER MCPHEE LLP 501 W. Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, California 92101 (619) 758-3600 rmcphee@kmpatentlaw.com Counsel for Defendant GOJO Industries, Inc.

EXHIBIT A

Alexander From: Aziz Awad Sent: Friday, August 8, 2025 5:20 PM To: Andrew Alexander Cc: Michael O. Cummings; John Cipolla; Nicholas Zalany; McPhee; Kritzer; Chet Bonner Subject: Re: Filing of Reply Briefs in UrthTech LLC v. GOJO Industries, Inc., Case No. 1:22- cv-06727-PKC

Mr. Alexander, I have emailed the Pro Se Intake Unit to request that the document titled “04-24-25 Awad Dep. Ex. 25” not be uploaded to the public docket, and I have copied you on that message for your records. For reference, the correct email address for the Pro Se Intake Unit is: Temporary Pro Se Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional information. Best regards,

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 8, 2025, at 3:42 PM, Andrew Alexander wrote:

Dr. Awad, It does not appear that | have access to send the Pro Se Intake Unit emails—my previous email bounced. Please promptly confirm that you will notify the Pro Se Intake Unit of GOJO’s request below and ensure that your proposed exhibit titled “4-24-25 Awad Dep. Ex. 25” will not be filed on the public docket. This document has been designated confidential under the Court’s Protective Order and contains highly sensitive GOJO information. Regards, Andy

Andrew W. Alexander Attorney at Law

aalexander @calfee.com 216.622.8634 Office 216.241.0816 Fax Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP The Calfee Building 1405 East Sixth Street Cleveland, OH 44114-1607

Calfee.com | Info@Calfee.com | 888.CALFEE1 vCard Mansfield Rule Certified 2023-2024 tress This electronic mail transmission may contain confidential and legally privileged information from the law firm of Calfee, Halter & Gri intended only for the use of the individual(s) identified as addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notifiec disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this electronic mail transmission is strictly □□□□□□□□ have received this transmission in error, please notify me by telephone immediately. From: Andrew Alexander Sent: Friday, August 8, 2025 3:36 PM To: aziz.awad@icloud.com; pro_se@nysd.uscourts.gov; ‘Michael O. Cummings’ ; John Cipolla ; Nicholas Zalany ; 'McPhee' ; 'Kritzer’ ; Chet Bonner Subject: RE: Filing of Reply Briefs in UrthTech LLC v. GOJO Industries, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06727-PKC Dear Pro Se Intake Unit, lam an attorney representing the defendant, GOJO Industries, in UrthTech LLC v. GOJO Industries, Inc. lt has come to our attention that Mr.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UrthTech LLC v. Gojo Industries, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

UrthTech LLC v. Gojo Industries, Inc. (UrthTech LLC v. Gojo Industries, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
435 F.3d 110 (Second Circuit, 2006)
GoSmile, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, DMDPC
769 F. Supp. 2d 630 (S.D. New York, 2011)