DST Systems, Inc. v. Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc.

Schulte RothsZabel LLP pocu: Third Avenue DATE FILED: September 20, □□□□ □□□ New York, NY 10022 212.756.2000 212.593.5955 fax WWW.SFZ.COM Robert J. Ward Writer’s E-mail Address 212.756.2166 [email protected] September 17, 2021 BY ECF EWE ae Bo □□ r) = □□ es fh tee faced Bo Rake Be ay itd de LUM MO) hy □□ The Honorable Andrew L. Carter, Jr. btad yi he bod i bd □ □ □□□ United States District Judge Southern District of New York United States Courthouse Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: DST Systems, Inc., et al. v. Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc., et al., 1:20-cv-09472-ALC Dear Judge Carter: We represent all of the defendants in the above-referenced action except Robert D. Goldfarb (collectively, the “RCG Defendants”). Pursuant to Your Honor’s Individual Practices, we write to respectfully request permission to file certain exhibits to the RCG Defendants’ letter request for a pre- motion conference (the “Request”’) under seal and to maintain under seal certain redacted portions of the Request.

The Request includes references to the settlement agreement between Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc. (“RCG”) and the AAA Arbitration! claimants, which is subject to a confidentiality provision that prohibits the RCG Defendants from publicly disclosing the contents of the agreement.

In addition, attached to the Request as Exhibits A and B are two awards entered by arbitrators in the AAA Arbitrations. As the applicable arbitration agreements require arbitrations brought thereunder to be confidential, the RCG Defendants request that Exhibits A and B be filed under seal in order to protect the confidentiality interests of the parties to the arbitrations in the contents of the arbitration awards.

Although a presumption of public access applies to judicial documents, 7.e., documents relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process, the weight of the presumption is “governed by the role of the material at issue” and the resulting value of such information to the public. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). Courts must also balance against the weight of the presumption any countervailing factors, such as “the privacy interests of those ' Capitalized terms not otherwise defined have the meanings ascribed to them in the Request.

The Honorable Andrew L. Carter, Jr. September 17, 2021 Page 2 resisting disclosure”—including “the degree to which the subject matter is traditionally considered private rather than public”—and the “nature and degree of injury” resulting from disclosure. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120; United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050-51 (2d Cir. 1995). The RCG Defendants respectfully submit that these factors weigh in favor of granting the RCG Defendants’ motion to seal.

Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Robert J. Ward Robert J. Ward cc: All Counsel of Record (via ECF) (Agdioe Y (2 ex So HON ANDREW GaniErt ai 7 “NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE September 20, 2021