Cerveceria Modelo de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP AND AFFILIATED PARTNERSHIPS Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Sandra C. Goldstein, P.C. United States To Call Writer Directly: Facsimile: +1 212 446 4779 +1 212 446 4800 cn me #1212 446 4900 [email protected] C SDNY } www. kirkland.com CUMENT CTRONICALLY FILED |IDATE rims March 3, 2023 ——————— VIA CM/ECF Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan, U.S.D.J.

United States District Court Southern District of New York Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Cerveceria Modelo de México, S. de R.L. de C.V., et al. v. CB Brand Strategies, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21 Civ. 01317-LAK (S.D.N.Y.) Dear Judge Kaplan: We represent Defendants CB Brand Strategies, LLC, Crown Imports LLC, and Compafiia Cervecera de Coahuila, S. de R.L. de C.V. (“Defendants”) in the above-captioned action. In accordance with Your Honor’s Individual Rules of Practice, we write to respectfully request authorization to seal/redact portions of Defendants’ forthcoming letter in opposition to Plaintiffs’ request for an instruction and exhibits thereto (the “Letter”), which will be filed Friday, March 3, 2023, in accordance with the Court’s February 24, 2023 Order (ECF No. 530). The exhibits appended to the Letter include the same, as well as correspondence between counsel regarding preparations for trial in this matter.

While there is a presumption of public access to judicial documents, courts have “considerable discretion in determining whether good cause exists to overcome the presumption of open access to documents.” Geller v. Branic Int’l Realty Corp., 212 F.3d 734, 738 (2d Cir. 2000). In exercising such discretion, courts must balance various factors, including “the competing interests of public access against the privacy interests of the parties.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Courts routinely grant requests to seal where the presumption of public access is outweighed by the privacy interests of the parties. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119. Under these circumstances, the balancing test weighs in favor of sealing/redacting confidential portions of the Letter.

The public disclosure of these documents would cause Defendants financial harm that outweighs any presumption of public access. Courts routinely permit the filing of such sensitive Austin Bay Area Beijing Boston Brussels Chicago Dallas HongKong Houston London Los Angeles Munich Paris Salt Lake City Shanghai Washington, D.C. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan, U.S.D.J.

Page 2 documents under seal. Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 2021 WL 1222122, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021) (holding documents may be filed under seal when they include “confidential research and development information, marketing plans, revenue information, pricing information, and the like”); GoSMiLE, Inc. v. Dr. Johnathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C., 769 F. Supp. 2d 630, 649-50 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (granting motion to seal “highly proprietary material concerning the defendants’ marketing strategies, product development, costs and budgeting”); Encyclopedia Brown Prods., Ltd. v. Home Box Office, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 2d 606, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (finding business information “may provide valuable insights into a company’s current business practices” and granting motion to seal).

Pursuant to Section 6.2 of the Protective Order, we will file the Letter and accompanying exhibits under seal. Pursuant to Your Honor’s Individual Practices, we will enclose full, unredacted versions of the accompanying exhibits. Defendants also respectfully request the Court’s permission to file public versions of the Letter within 7 days of the under-seal filing.

We thank the Court for its consideration of this matter.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Sandra C. Goldstein Sandra C. Goldstein, P.C.

Eptusled sel