ALSTON & BIRD

90 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 212-210-9400 | Fax: 212-210-9444

Steven L. Penaro Direct Dial: 212-210-9460 Email: [email protected] October 26, 2023 VIA ECF Hon. Andrew L. Carter i i □ * i! fj i i i | IB Ee □□ United States Courthouse Go ewal of] Wa? coo fee a WE □□□ □□□□ 40 Foley Square, Room 435 New York, NY 10007 Re: FEventim Live Asia Pte. Ltd vy. KAMP Music Festival Inc., 1:23-cv-05942-ALC Dear Judge Carter: We represent Plaintiff Eventim Live Asia Pte. Ltd (“ELA”) in the above referenced matter. We write pursuant to SDNY ECF Rules & Instructions 6.14, for leave to file in redacted form ELA’s Memorandum of Law In Support of Its Motion for Default Judgment and Damages, and the accompanying Declaration of Steven L. Penaro, and Affidavit of Jason Miller. As set forth below, these documents contain confidential information. ! ELA’s documents in support of its Motion for Default refer to information related to the parties’ business relationship, negotiations, and agreements that ELA is contractually obligated to keep confidential. See § 4.1 of Exhibit C (“[e]ach party acknowledges and agrees that certain information which it may receive from the other party is confidential (“Confidential Information”) which includes without limitation the terms and conditions of this Agreement, any non-public information concerning the businesses or finances of the other party. . .”). In light of this provision, out of an abundance of caution, ELA seeks leave to file the above-referenced documents in redacted form. ELA submits with this letter proposed redactions to the Memorandum of Law, Declaration of Steven L. Penaro, and Affidavit of Jason Miller. This Court has “supervisory power over its own records and files,” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,

(1978), and may seal documents after “weighing the interests advanced by the parties in light of the public interest and the duty of the courts.” /d. at 602; F.D.LC. v. Ernst & Ernst,

, 232 (2d Cir. 1982) (“It is beyond question that a court may issue orders prohibiting disclosure of documents or information.”); see also Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga,

(2d Cir. 2006). Although there is a presumption of public access to court documents, such access must be weighed against the danger of impairing judicial efficiency as well as a party’s privacy interests. United States v. Amodeo,

(2d Cir. 1995).

+ ELA also proposes redacting Exhibit 1 and sealing Exhibits 6, 8-10, and 12-17.

October 26, 2023 Page 2

ELA is electronically serving the Court and serving Defendant KAMP Music Festival Inc. (“KAMP”) by certified mail with copies of the documents in support of its Motion for Default that ELA proposes to file in redacted and sealed form so as not to prejudice KAMP’s ability to respond. For the aforementioned reasons and for good cause shown, ELA respectfully requests that this Court permit it to file its Motion for Default and accompanying documents in redacted form and under seal. We are available at Your Honor’s convenience should the Court require any additional information.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Steven L. Penaro Steven L. Penaro

Enclosures

Plaintiff's motion to seal ECF Nos. 22-24 is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to maintain ECF Nos. 22-24 under seal. The documents contain sensitive information that should not be a part of public record. SQ ORDERED: ;

UN £0 STATES DISTRICT Jun AES ' Dated: October 27, 2023 New York, NY