LICHTEN @&WLISS-RIORDAN, P.C. HAROLD L. LICHTEN™~ ATTORNEYS AT LAW SARAH SCHALMAN-BERGEN® 729 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 2000 WWW.LLRLAW.COM MATTHEW W. THOMSON* BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02116 ADELAIDE H. PAGANO~ THOMAS? FOWLER Tacit: Giza OLENA SAVYTSKA* x ADMITTED IN MASSACHUSETTS ANNE KRAMER«4 A ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA MICHELLE CASSORLA** ® ADMITTED IN NEW YORK ZACHARY RUBIN*’”* = ADMITTED IN PENNSYLVANIA ANASTASIA DOHERTY* “ ADMITTED IN NEW JERSEY TARA BOGHOSIAN* ¢ ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT MATTHEW PATTON*« xt ADMITTED IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA KRYSTEN CONNON** a ADMITTED IN TENNESSEE BENJAMIN J. WEBER“ OF COUNSEL By November 30, 2021, Defendant shall f November 17, 2021 letter motion making a case for filing the referenced documents in redacted form. I VIA CM/ECF CM/ECF Defendant’s case is insufficient, I will ent The Honorable Vernon S. Broderick order denying the request and directing United States District Court Plaintiff to file the referenced documents 1 Southern District of New York unredacted form. 40 Foley Square, Room 415 New York, NY 10007 SO ORDERED: 1/22/2071 RE: Abelar v. International Business Machines Corp., Alyn Corfe HON. VERNON S. BRODERICK Dear Judge Broderick: UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE | represent Plaintiff in the above-referenced matter. Pursuant to Section 5(B)(ii) of Your Honor’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, Plaintiff seeks permission to file his Motion for Summary Judgment preliminarily under seal, along with the accompanying Declaration of Shannon Liss-Riordan and exhibits. Plaintiff will also publicly file a redacted version of these documents, with all information that the parties agree is non-confidential unredacted. The reason for this request is that Defendant IBM contends that these documents contain information that falls under the scope of the confidentiality agreement contained within |BM’s arbitration agreement (see Exhibit 2 to Liss-Riordan Decl.), which is the subject of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. As explained extensively in the Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff does not believe that IBM's confidentiality provision in its arbitration agreement should be enforced. In any event, Plaintiff believes that these documents should be publicly filed, given that Your Honor’s Individual Practice 5(B)(ii) states that “the parties’ consent or the fact that information is subject to a confidentiality agreement between litigants is not, by itself, a valid basis to overcome the presumption in favor of public access to judicial government.” (citing In re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., No. 14-MD-2543 (JMF),

, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2015).

Nevertheless, until IBM has had the opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s argument that these documents should be filed publicly, Plaintiff requests that these documents be preliminarily permitted to be filed under seal, with redacted versions filed publicly (for which the portions of the papers that IBM concedes are not confidential will not be redacted). Plaintiff requests further that Your Honor, pursuant to Individual Practice 5(B)(iii), order IBM to submit a letter within three (3) business days explaining its position on why the redacted information should remain out of public view.

Sincerely, /s/ Shannon Liss-Riordan Shannon Liss-Riordan

Attorney for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 17, 2021, a true and accurate copy of the foregoing document was filed via this Court’s CM/ECF system.

/s/ Shannon Liss-Riordan Shannon Liss-Riordan