Goldstrom v. Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC

Frankfurt Kurnit Ronald C. Minkoff The motion to seal is granted temporarily. The Court will asses: Liberty Street, New York, New York 10005 whether to keep the materials at issue sealed or redacted when T (212) 705-4837 F (347) 438-2112 deciding the underlying motions. The Clerk of Court is directed rminkoff @fkks.com to terminate ECF No. 63.

November 10, 2023 SO ORDERED.

VIA ECF Honorable Jesse M. Furman United States District Judge Southern District of New York Centre Street, Room 2202 New York, New York 10007 November 13, 2023 Re: — Sealing Portions of Reply in Support of Motion to Compel in Goldstrom vy. Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC, 23 Civ. 7527 (JMF) Dear Judge Furman: We represent Third-Party Interpleader Defendants McKinsey & Co., Inc., McKinsey & Company Inc. United States, McKinsey Holdings, Inc., and McKinsey Recovery & Transformation Services U.S. LLC (collectively, “McKinsey”). Pursuant to Rule 7(C) of Your Honor’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases (“Indiy. Rules’’), McKinsey hereby seeks leave to file under seal portions of its Reply in Further Support of its Motion to Compel Arbitration (the “Reply’”).

The Reply contains information related to the legal representation of McKinsey and others by Selendy Gay Elsberg PLLC (“Selendy”). The Reply also discusses matters that McKinsey contends are subject to confidential arbitration and that are not properly addressed in this forum. These are the same grounds on which the Court previously ordered the sealing of portions of McKinsey’s motion to compel arbitration. See Order dated October 10, 2023 (Dkt.

No. 50); see also Dkt. Nos. 22, 37,59. See also, e.g., Stafford v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., No. 22-1240, 2023 WL 5183546, at *5 (2d Cir. Aug. 14, 2023) (sealing warranted for judicial documents subject to confidential arbitration); Guyden v. Aetna, Inc., 544 F.3d 376, 385 (2d Cir. 2008) (confidentiality is “a paradigmatic aspect of arbitration.”); Johnson v. Medisys Health Network, No. 10-CV-1596 ERK VVP, 2011 WL 5222917, at *22-25 (E.D.N.Y. June 1, 2011), report and recommendation adopted as modified, No. CV-10-1596 ERK VVP, 2011 WL 4101323 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2011) (redacting and sealing confidential information discussed during an attorney-client relationship, which “is broader than the scope of the attorney-client privilege’) (cleaned up).

With respect to the Reply, McKinsey has proposed redactions to cover confidential material subject to arbitration, while allowing public access to other aspects of the Reply.

McKinsey submits that such an approach appropriately balances the need for public access with Honorable Jesse M. Furman November 10, 2023 Page -2- McKinsey’s interest in protecting its confidential attorney-client information, and the confidentiality of arbitration. See Indiv. Rule 7(B).

Respectfully submitted, FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN & SELZ, P.C.

By: /s/ Ronald C. Minkoff Ronald C. Minkoff Counsel for McKinsey & Company, Inc., McKinsey & Company Inc. United States, McKinsey Holdings Inc., and McKinsey Recovery & Transformation Services U.S., LLC cc: All counsel of record (via ECF)