IN RE: MINDBODY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
IN RE: MINDBODY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Trial Court Opinion
SVERAUVEW Bb | eee ELECTRONICALLY FILE KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP DOC #:__ AND AFFILIATED PARTNERSHIPS DATE FILED: 09/02/2021 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 John P. Del Monaco United States To Call Writer Directly: Facsimile: +1 212 446 4795 +1 212 446 4800 +1 212 446 4900 [email protected] www.kirkland.com
August 27, 2021 VIA CM/ECF The Honorable Valerie E. Caproni USS. District Court, Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall Courthouse 40 Foley Square, Room 240 New York, NY 10007
Re: Inre Mindbody, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:19-cv-08331-VEC Dear Judge Caproni: I write on behalf of Defendants MINDBODY, Inc., Richard L. Stollmeyer, and Brett White, and with the consent of counsel for Defendant Eric Liaw (collectively, “Defendants”). Pursuant to Section 5.B(11) of Your Honor’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, Defendants respectfully request permission to file under seal limited portions of Defendants’ Answer (the “Answer”) to the Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”) filed by Lead Plaintiffs Walleye Trading LLC and Walleye Opportunities Master Fund Ltd. (“Lead Plaintiffs”). Defendants propose narrowly tailored redactions to their Answer to maintain under seal specific information contained in the SAC that the Court has already authorized be filed under seal with respect to the SAC. (See Dkt. No. 92.) Specifically, Defendants propose only to redact portions of their Answer that restate the allegations in the SAC, and only with respect to material that is redacted in the SAC. As the Court has already determined (see id.), the proposed redactions are appropriate under the two-part test outlined in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
435 F.3d 110, 119-20(2d Cir. 2006) (a court must “determin[e] the weight of the presumption of access” based on the role the material plays in the court’s exercise of its Article II power, and then “balance competing considerations” against that weight, including, but not limited to, “the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure”). For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant the limited sealing request herein. We appreciate the Court’s consideration of these matters and are available should there be any questions.
Bay Area Beijing Boston Chicago Dallas Hong Kong Houston London Los Angeles Munich Paris Shanghai Washington, D.C.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
The Honorable Valerie E. Caproni August 27, 2021 Page 2
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John P. Del Monaco John P. Del Monaco
ce: All Counsel of Record (via CM/ECF)
GRANTED. ORDERED.
Date: September 2, 2021 VALERIE CAPRONI STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Reference
- Status
- Unknown