Loomis Sayles Trust Company LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc

CRAVATH Michael A.Paskin [email protected] T+1-212-474-1760 New York November 1, 2023 Loomis Sayles Trust Company, LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., No. 1:22-cv-6706-LGS Dear Judge Schofield: Pursuant to Rule I.D.3 of Your Honor’s Individual Rules and Procedures for Civil Cases and the Stipulated Protective Order for Confidential Information (Dkt. No. 40), Defendant Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (“CGMI’) respectfully requests leave to file under seal certain documents in connection with its Motion for Summary Judgment. In particular, for the reasons set forth herein, CGMI seeks to file under seal unredacted versions of its (1) Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) Local Rule 56.1 Statement in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) certain exhibits submitted in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.

In the above-referenced documents, CGMI cites and discusses material that has been designated as “Confidential” or “Confidential — Attorneys Eyes Only” by Plaintiff Loomis Sayles Trust Company, LLC and third parties Loomis, Sayles & Company L.P. and Citadel Securities LLC pursuant to the Protective Order entered in this matter on November 21, 2022 (Dkt. No. 40). Additionally, CGMI cites to two “trade confirms”, submitted as Exhibits 50 & 51, that identify Loomis clients as well as those clients’ financial account information. Consistent with Your Honor’s Individual Rule I.D.3 and the Protective Order in this case, unredacted copies of these documents have been filed under seal.

CGMI takes no position as to whether the information at issue qualifies for sealing by this Court, but has filed it under seal based on the designations by the above entities.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Michael A. Paskin Michael A. Paskin NEW YORK LONDON WASHINGTON, D.C. CRAVATH, SWAINE & Moore LLP Worldwide Plaza CityPoint 1601 K Street NW Eighth Avenue One Ropemaker Street Washington, D.C. 20006-1682 New York, NY 10019-7475 London EC2Y 9HR T+1-202-869-7700 T+1-212-474-1000 T+44-20-7453-1000 F+1-202-869-7600 F+1-212-474-3700 F+44-20-7860-1150 The Honorable Lorna G. Schofield U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse Foley Square New York, NY 10007 VIA ECF Copies to: FOLEY HoAG LLP Matthew C. Baltay (pro hac vice) Dean Richlin (pro hac vice) Kenneth S. Leonetti Leah S. Rizkallah Amanda S. Coleman Natalie F. Panariello (pro hac vice) [email protected] . [email protected] oo Lo | A ZL. Z ( [email protected] LORNA G. SCHOFIEL [email protected] UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE [email protected] [email protected] and non-parties Citadel Securities LLC and Loomis, Sayles & Company L.P. move to seal various document nection with Defendant's motion for summary judgment. "The common law right of public access to judicial is firmly rooted in our nation’s history," but this right is not absolute and courts “must balance competing against” the presumption of access. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d C (internal quotation marks omitted). “Our precedents indicate that documents submitted to a court for its in a summary judgment motion are -- as a matter of law -- judicial documents to which a strong presun attaches, under both the common law and the First Amendment.” /d. at 121. In weighing that □□□□□□□□□□□ competing considerations, such as the confidentiality of business or personal information, a court must cons ualified First Amendment right of access” and can seal documents based on this right only “if specific, on the re are made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve 1 Id. at 120. Where the movants seek to redact specific information about confidential business and person the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect against competitive or personal harm, which the presumption of access accorded to these filings. However, to the extent the movants request to seal e the parties’ justifications are insufficient. Therefore, the applications to seal at Dkt. Nos. 120, 126, 131, 1 are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part without prejudice to renewal. The motions are granted to the movants have proposed specific redactions and denied to the extent they request sealing the entirety of Nonpublic business and personal information may be redacted, but background descriptions or other nfidential surrounding information shall not be redacted. All documents currently filed under seal shall remair seal at this time. By August 29, 2024, the movants shall file the documents containing the proposed specific on the public docket reflecting those redactions and either (1) file renewed motions to redact with specifi redactions highlighted for the remaining documents in accordance with the above ruling or (2) file on the p unredacted versions. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 120, 126, 13 and 142.