Weidinger v. Djokic

Opinion

DAY PITNEYutp BOSTON CONNECTICUT FLORIDA □□□ JERSEY NEWYORK PROVIDENCE WASHINGTON, DC Defendant's motion to file the requested documents under seal is GRANT See United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995) (describing balancing test and privacy interests courts must consider when redactir judicial record). SO ORDERED. Dated: October 8, 2024 New York, New York Le A— Dale E. Ho United States District Judge VIA ECF Hon. Ronnie Abrams, United States District Judge United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square, Room 1506 New York, NY 10007 Re: Weidinger v. Djokic, Case No. 1:22-cv-08388-RA Dear Judge Abrams: We represent the Defendant Erik Djokic (“Mr. Djokic”) in the above-captioned matter. Pursuant to the guidance provided by the Court during our March 10, 2022 pre-trial conference, and in accordance with S.D.N.Y. Standing Order 19-MC-583 and Section 6 of the S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules and Instructions, Mr. Djokic respectfully submits this letter motion seeking leave to file certain documents in connection with his Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(B)(6) and Motion to Stay the Amended Complaint (collectively, the “Motion”) in redacted form. Specifically, we previously filed redacted versions of the Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion (ECF No. 29) (“Memorandum”), the Declaration of Sarah Krissoff in Support of the Motion (ECF No. 30) (“Krissoff Declaration”), and Exhibit E to the Krissoff Declaration (ECF No. 30/5) (“Exhibit E”). Contemporaneously with this letter, we now file unredacted versions of these three documents under seal, with the proposed redactions identified via highlighting. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga provides that any redacting or sealing of a court must be essential to preserve higher values, must be narrowly tailored to serve its justifiable purpose, and must be otherwise consistent with the presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents. 435 F. 3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). The proposed redactions for for all three documents are consistent with the decision in Lugosch. See id. The redactions identified for the Memorandum and Krissoff Declaration solely concern Mr. Djokic’s medical information, which is one of the six categories that the Court’s Privacy Policy lists as requiring caution. It is necessary to redact this information to prevent public disclosure of Mr. Djokic’s sensitive medical information. The proposed redaction for Exhibit E consists only of a check

114401574.2

DAY PITNEY up March 16, 2023 Page 2 number. This redaction is also consistent with Lugosch and the Court’s Privacy Policy, as it relates to personal financial information. All of the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect sensitive information while recognizing the presumption of public access to court documents. Counsel for Plaintiff Morgan Weidinger consented to the proposed redactions, and was provided with unredacted copies of the Memorandum and Krissoff Declaration shortly after they were filed. Accordingly, we respectfully request permission from the Court to file the Memorandum, Krissoff Declaration, and Exhibit E in redacted form.

Respectfully submitted,

DAY PITNEY LLP /s/ Sarah Krissoff 605 Third Avenue, 31st Floor New York, NY 10158-1803 Telephone: (212) 297-2413 Email: skrissoff@daypitney.com John Vukelj Telephone: (212) 297-5824 Email: jvukelj@daypitney.com Attorneys for Defendant Erik Djokic