USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED re DOC #: G. GREG DATE FILED: _ 8/28/2020 wt, COLEMANLAW —— Helping People, Changing Lives

August 28, 2020 VIA ECF FILING The Honorable Analisa Torres Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl. St. New York, NY 100007-1312 Re: Graham, et. al v. National Beverage Corp., No. 19-cv-873 Dear Judge Torres: Plaintiffs in the above-referenced case write to request permission to publicly file a redacted copy of their pre-motion letter regarding their anticipated motion for summary judgment, as well as their accompanying Rule 56.1 statement and Defendant’s response thereto. The standards for filing documents under seal in this Circuit were first set forth in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga,

(2d Cir. 2006). In that case, the Second Circuit stated that the “common law right of public access” attaches to “judicial documents”, which are those documents “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” Jd. In deciding requests such as this one, the Court needs to balance competing considerations against the right of public access. Jd. at 120. Valid competing considerations exist where the disclosure of confidential information would subject a party to “financial harm” or cause a party “significant competitive disadvantage.” Standard Inv. Chartered Inc. v. Fin. Indus. Reg. Auth., Inds., 347 Fed App’x 615, 617 (2d Cir. 2009). Here, the proposed redacted information has been designated “highly confidential — attorneys’ eyes only” by Defendant and various third parties, on the ground that the information constitutes trade secrets and are sensitive and proprietary information, the disclosure of which could have significant competitive impact on the designating parties’ business. See Awestruck Mktg. Group, LLC y. Black Ops Productions, LLC, 16-cv-3639 (RJS),

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2016) (granting motion to seal client list because it “contains sensitive and proprietary information that is not generally publicly available and that, if revealed, could cause significant competitive harm’); Encyclopedia Brown Prods., Ltd. v. HBO, Inc.,

(S.D.N.Y. 1998) (granting request to seal confidential business information and trade secrets that

were commercially valuable to defendants because disclosure would cause irreparable harm, outweighing the public’s interest in access to it). Plaintiffs take no position as to Defendant’s and thirdparties’designations. Pursuant to this Court’s IndividualRules,Section IV(A)(ii),contemporaneouslyfiled herewith are the proposed redacted documents (publicly filed), and the unredacted documents with proposed redactions highlighted(filed underseal).In addition, copies of all unredacted documents have been submitted to Court and counsel via electronic email. For reasons stated above, Plaintiffs respectfully request leave to publicly file a redacted copy of the referenced documents. Respectfully submitted, GREG COLEMAN LAWPC /s/ Greg Coleman Greg Coleman Rachel Soffin Lisa A. White 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] SIMMONS HANLY CONROY Mitchell M. Breit 112 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 [email protected] BARBAT, MANSOUR, SUCIU PLLC Nick Suciu III 1644 Bracken Rd. Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 [email protected] BRUSCALAW,PLLC Lauren Brusca 221 NE Ivanhoe Blvd. Suite 200 Orlando, FL 32804 Telephone: (407) 501-6564 lauren @brusca-law.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs

cc: ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD VIA ECF GRANTED. The proposed redactions consist of proprietary information concerning the formulation of Defendant's products. Defendant's interest in protecting that sensitive information outweighs the presumption of public access to judicial documents, at least while the Court is merely considering the parties’ pre-motion letters. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 28, 2020 New York, New York

ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge