Contrarian Emerging Markets, L.P. v. The Republic of Ecuador

Direct Dial: 212-906-1350 ELECTRONIC ALLY FILED 888 Thia □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ [email protected] DOC #: New York, New York 10022-4834 oT Tel: +1.212.906.1200 Fax: +1.212.751.4864 | DATE FILED:___7/31/2020 | www lw.com AT H A M &WAT K | N S _ FIRM / AFFILIATE OFFICES Beijing Moscow Boston Munich Brussels New York Century City Orange County July 30, 2020 Chicago Paris Dubai Riyadh Dusseldorf San Diego VIA ECE rit ars Hong Kong Shanghai The Honorable E. Valerie Caproni Houston Silicon Valley United States District Court ee are Southern District of New York ena. ° Washington, DC.

40 Foley Square, Room 240 Milan New York, New York 10007 Re: = Contrarian Emerging Markets, L.P., et al. v. The Republic of Ecuador, Case No. 1:20-cv-05890-VEC-OTW Dear Judge Caproni: On behalf of Plaintiffs Contrarian Emerging Markets, L.P., GMO Emerging Country Debt Fund, GMO Emerging Country Debt Investment Fund plc, and GMO Emerging Country Debt (UCITS) Fund (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), we write to request permission to file Exhibit A to the Second Declaration of Michael E. Ginnings in Support of Application for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order in the above-captioned case under seal, pursuant to Rule 5.A of Your Honor’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases. Defendant does not object to this redaction.

Plaintiffs make this request because this Exhibit contains sensitive financial information regarding Contrarian Emerging Markets, L.P.’s holdings.

The Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) explained that the presumption of public access to judicial documents rests on the notion that public monitoring of the work of the federal courts “is an essential feature of democratic control. . . . [s}uch monitoring is not possible without access to testimony and documents that are used in the performance of Article II functions.” Once a court has determined that the documents sought to be sealed are judicial documents to which a common law presumption of access attaches, it must determine the weight of that presumption. /d. at 119.

At the same time, this Court has “considerable discretion in determining whether good cause exists to overcome the presumption of open access to documents filed in [its] courts.” Geller v. Branic Int’l Realty Corp., 212 F.3d 734, 738 (2d Cir. 2000). And under relevant case law, “[t]he parties may file . .. documents under seal because they include confidential business information Avocent Redmond Corp. v. Raritan Ams., Inc., No. 10 Civ. 6100 (PKC), 2012 WL 3114855, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2012); see also Graczyk v. Verizon Commce’ns, Inc., No. 18 Civ. 6465 (PGG), 2020 WL 1435031, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2020) (“[c]Jourts in this Circuit routinely permit parties to redact sensitive financial information .. .”). The information sought to be filed under seal is also of a limited quantity, as it accounts for a small portion of one of several pages.

Page 2 This further supports the issuance of a sealing order. Avocent Redmond, 2012 WL 3114855, at *15, Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court issue an order permitting it to file (1) a redacted version of Exhibit A to the Second Declaration of Michael E. Ginnings in Support of Application for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order and (2) an unredacted version of the Exhibit under seal.

Dated: July 30, 2020 Respectfully submitted, Greenwich, Connecticut LATHAM & WATKINS LLP /s/ Christopher J. Clark Christopher J. Clark Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 Tel: (212) 906-1200 Fax: (212) 751-4864 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs Contrarian Emerging Markets, L.P., GMO Emerging Country Debt Fund, GMO Emerging Country Debt Investment Fund plc, and GMO Emerging Country Debt (UCITS) Fund Application GRANTED. Plaintiffs may file a redacted version of Exhibit A and an unredacted version under seal.

SO ORDERED.

Velen. Coy HON. VALERIE CAPRONI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7/31/2020