yh Ber, oe pe Rr, fie □ Fat ARES la Weuo

THE CiTy OF NEW YORK Hon. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix LAW DEPARTMENT Nicholas R. Ciappetta Corporation Counsel 100 CHURCH STREET Administrative Law and Regulatory Litigation NEW YORK, NY 10007 Division (212) 356-4036 [email protected] November 1, 2022

BY ECF Honorable Lorna G. Schofield United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 Re: Jonathan Corbett v. Kathleen Hochul, ef al., 22 CV 5867 (LGS) Dear Judge Schofield: I am an attorney in the office of Hon. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York. I submit this letter motion pursuant to the Court’s Order dated October 25, 2022 (Docket Entry No. 66), on behalf of Defendants Eric Adams, Mayor of the City of New York, Keechant Sewell, Commissioner of the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”), and NYPD Inspector Hugh Bogle, Commanding Officer of the NYPD License Division, all sued in their official capacity (collectively “City Defendants”), to seek approval to file a redacted document. On Friday, October 21, 2022, City Defendants filed their opposition papers to Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Docket Entry No. 48), which consists of a memorandum of law (Docket Entry No. 63) and an attorney declaration (Docket Entry No. 64). Docket Entry No. 64 contains five exhibits, including portions of Plaintiff's pending application for a carry business handgun license (Docket Entry No. 64-1). Following the City Defendants’ filing, Plaintiff informed me via email that he considers information submitted in Docket Entry No. 64-1 to be sensitive, particularly his prior work history and his business’s cash handling practices. Accordingly, at the request of the Plaintiff, I submitted a letter dated October 24, 2022, to your Honor seeking permission under SDNY Electronic Case Filing Rules and Instructions Section 21.7 to place under seal a document previously filed by City Defendants or further redact such document. On October 25, 2022, the City Defendants’ application was granted by the Court with instructions to “file a letter motion

for approval of the redacted filing in accordance with Individual Rule I.D.3 by November 1, 2022.” Docket Entry No. 66 (omitting emphasis). While the type of information that Plaintiff seeks redacted is not included in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2', City Defendants are sensitive to Plaintiff's concerns. Further, while other information on that page is germane to the City Defendants’ opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction, the information that Plaintiff is concerned with is not relevant to the instant motion. In accordance with Individual Rule I.D.3, an appendix is included on the next page identifying all individuals who should have access to the sealed/redacted document. City Defendants are also separately (a) publicly filing the relevant portion of Plaintiff's license application with the proposed redactions and (b) filing under seal a copy of the unredacted document with the proposed redactions highlighted. Accordingly, City Defendants request that the court grant this motion to file a further redacted version of Plaintiff's pending application for a carry business handgun license. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. pectfytty sybynitted, <a

Nicholas Ciappetta enior C e cation GRANTED in part. Plaintiff's request to seal the gun Teen eeu Is entirety is granted. The document, fi t. Nos. 64-1, 70 and 72 shall be sealed, or shall remain under seal. A three-part inquiry determines whether to seal a See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga,

(2d Cir. 2006). The first question is whether the is “a judicial document subject to the [presumed] right of public access,” meaning that the document is “relevant tc of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” /d. at 119 (internal quotation marks omitted). The sec if the presumption attaches, is to determine the weight of the presumption by assessing “the role of the material at issue xercise of Article Ill judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.” /a quotation marks omitted). The third step is to balance against the presumption any “competing considerations” suct law enforcement|[,] judicial efficiency” and “the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.” /d. at 120 (internal marks omitted). At this stage, where the contents of the gun license application are not in dispute and have no bearing on the pending motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court finds that Plaintiff's privacy interest in keeping under seal overcomes the presumption, if any, of public access to such document. The parties are cautioned that, redacted information is not critical to judicial decision-making concerning the motion for a preliminary injunction, th not be true of the anticipated motion to dismiss, or a potential future motion for summary judgment. The □□□□□□□ unsealed at a later stage accordingly. of Court is respectfully directed to maintain the seal on Dkt. Nos. 64-1 and 70, and to seal Dkt. No. 72, with access to the parties listed in the appendix. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 69. November 29, 2022 New York, New York ! The document was already redacted by City Defendants to remove Plaintiff's date of birth, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. LORNA G. SCHOFIEL’ STaTRE Nierricr Joncer

APPENDIX Nicholas R. Ciappetta, □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ for City Defendants Todd Spiegelman, Esq...... □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Counsel for State Defendants Jonathan Corbett............. □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ laintitft