In re: LATAM Airlines Group S.A.

III EE EEE EEE HOHARD 2. COUPER VIGTORE HOU MANUEL □□□□ SEPEREY Dyes AOGLER A. COOPER KYLE A. □□□□ J. SHS 44 baa4 158 4HiA □□□□□□□ a BTEVEN WHLRER HE. SHAPIRO ARGH EL ZUCKERMAN One Liberty Plaza INMARLA,SERSTENANG © ELleAMETMUzHas □□□□□□□□ New York, NY 10006-1470 2buaeu anrontnn Jokatsairg.nouounen BAUR □□□□□□ WICHAEL &. WEMBERGES DARTEL FLAT SLAYTON □□□□□□□ Beat 212 285 2000 Bove este ieuea epee “naomi Pi+1 212225 3999 WONAELD.DarA AUAID. EREMEMEAM suprty □□□□□□ CAHLOIGE D. BOLOUZTI JA. SRMEe PaMORT Sears □□□□□ □□□□□ clearygottlieb.com Muecmurenawe auace.ow JARED GERBER MARVE ALCOCK FRANTISGS |. CERTERS ALGHI fte¥aHi HEIDE □□□□□□□□ FRANT EVGA L.ODELL VAHE YARLARE ANDRE Ve WEAVER WILLTALES, MCHAS AGORW CASUSOL HELGA □□ □□□□□□ AMERICAS ASIA EUROPE & MIDDLE EAST JOOnW RHA Davie N HENBIIGTON TAURA □□□□□□□□□ NEW YORK BEIPING ABUDHABE — LONBON lina sckwerzen AARDIeY wetERS SURaHUA E □□□□□□ SAN FRANCISCO HONG RONG BRUSSELS MILAN aun GIBALDET DABIEL 0 ASYHGLES DAVIDWLS. □□□□□□ PAULO SROUL COLOGNE PARIS aHAMTALE ROA fate goNnoN oe Mina Roast vee SILICON VALLEY FRANKPURT ROME ADAM FLSIBHER JOREPH LAHZSAION MaEEEaY □□□□□□□ WASHINGTON, TE □□ D: +1 212 225 2086 [email protected] July 29, 2022 VIA ECF The Honorable Denise L. Cote - Ak, United States District Court fowe Southern District of New York Hy ‘a Pearl Street, Room 1910 New York, New York 10007 Re: Inve: LATAM Airlines Group S.A., Case No. 1:22-cy-5660-DEC Dear Judge Cote: We write on behalf of appellees LATAM Airlines Group 8.A. and its affiliated debtors and debtors-in-possession (collectively, the “Appellees” or “Debtors”) to respectfully request authorization to file in redacted form the endix to ellee ief 1 ositio e th tion to file in redacted form the Appendix to Appellee’s Brief in Opposition to th Appellant’s Opening Brief (the “Supplemental Appendix”).!

The Supplemental Appendix contains information from the Bankruptcy Court record that was filed under seal or accepted into the record and designated by the Bankruptcy Court as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order, J” re: LATAM Airlines Group S.A., et al, No. 20-11254 (JLG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Tuly 6, 2020), ECF No. 444 (the “Protective Order’).

Per the Protective Order, the parties designated as “Confidential Matenal” any “nonpublic proprietary or confidential, technical, business, financial, [or] personal” information.

Protective Order at 4. The Parties also designated as “Highly Confidential Material” any “Confidential Material” that is “of such a nature that a risk of competitive injury would be created” upon disclosure, “such as trade secrets, sensitive financial or business information, or | The Appellees do not seek to redact any portion of the Brief in Opposition to the Appellant’s Opening Brief.

Cleary Gatilieb Steen & Hamilton LLP ar an affiliated entity has an office in each of the locations Usted above.

TAVHULAUIN LARTEISO Ly WU, Pe material prepared by its industry advisors, financial advisors, accounting advisors.” Jd.

Appellees made every effort to exclude Confidential or Highly Confidential material from their Brief in Opposition to the Appellant’s Opening Brief; however, the Supplemental Appendix does contain information we believe is critical to Your Honor’s consideration of the issues at hand which has been designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential.

The Debtors’ interests in protecting information that reflects confidential and sensitive commercial terms of the business agreements at issue and information that was shared during the course of relevant negotiations, which could be competitively harmful if made public, outweighs the general presumption in favor of public disclosure. See United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995); see also GoSMILE, Inc. v. Dr. Johnathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C., 769 F. Supp. 2d 630, 649 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (permitting party to file materials under seal that contained proprietary information); Tropical Sails Corp. v. Yext, Inc., No. 14 CIV. 7582, 2016 WL 141548, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2016) (sealing exhibits that would cause defendant “competitive injury” if disclosed); Encyclopedia Brown Prods., Ltd. v. Home Box Office, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 2d 606, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (restricting access on the grounds that “confidential business information dating back even a decade or more may provide valuable insight into a company’s current business practices that a competitor would seek to exploit.”).

The parties’ interest in keeping this information private is especially strong here, given that the Supplemental Appendix contains nonpublic confidential information concerning the Debtors’ operations and certain business and financial transactions. See Laura Laaman & Assocs., LLC v. Davis, 2019 WL 3716512, at *2-3 (D. Conn. Aug. 7, 2019) (finding that “disclosure of [similar] materials would cause .. . competitive harm that outweighs the presumption of open access”).

Pursuant to Your Honor’s Individual Practices, we electronically filed under seal a full, unredacted version of the Supplemental Appendix.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best, ‘s/ Jeffrey A. Rosenthal Jeffrey A. Rosenthal Attorney for LATAM Airlines Group S.A. and its affiliated debtors and debtors-in-possession