Martin v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company

oa Mitchell Breit E. 50t st. New York, NY 10022 e r [email protected] @ COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN = August 30, 2024 ane Via ECF ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: The Honorable Margaret M. Garnett DATE FILED: 9/3/2024 United States District Judge Southern District of New York Foley Square, Room 2102 New York, NY 10007 Re: Martin v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company - Case 1:21-cv-02923; Plaintiff's Motion for Seal Dear Judge Garnett: We represent Plaintiffs in the above-referenced action. We submit this letter in support of Plaintiffs’ request to seal and to continue to seal sensitive personal and proprietary commercial information contained in the Expert Report of Terry M. Long (“Long Report”) and contained in the excerpts of the Deposition of Terry M. Long (“Long Deposition”), attached as exhibits to Plaintiff's forthcoming Response to Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Expert Report of Terry M. Long (“Response”).

Brighthouse previously filed a motion to seal the identical sensitive personal and proprietary commercial information contained in the Long Report (‘Prior Motion to Seal’). ECF No. 95. Plaintiffs now request to seal the same portions of the Long Report as in the Prior Motion to Seal. In addition, Plaintiffs seek to seal the Long Deposition as it may contain sensitive personal and proprietary commercial information. As this Court requires Plaintiffs respond within two business days to Defendants Letter Motion under 37.2 [ECF 97-98]. Plaintiffs have been unable to meet and confer under with Defendant prior to the submission of the Response. Plaintiffs therefore make this request to file the Long Deposition under seal until the parties can meet and confer and determine which testimony, if any, Defendants request to be redacted from the Long Deposition. Following the meet and confer with Defendants, Plaintiffs will re-file a redacted exhibit of the Long Deposition.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the Long Report and Long Deposition be sealed.

We appreciate the Court’s consideration of this request.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Mitchell Breit Mitchell Breit Affiliates/Locations | California | Chicago | Georgia | Kentucky | Mississippi | New Jersey | New York | North Carolina | Puerto Rico | South Carolina | Tennessee | Washington | Washington D.C. | Germany | Netherlands | Portugal | United Kingdom www.milberg.com Hon. Margaret M. Garnett August 30, 2024 Tyler Litke MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC E. 50™ Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (202) 932-7081 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Andrei Rado Law Office of Andrei Rado PLLC Wall Street, Suite 1343 New York, NY 10005 [email protected] Tel: 646-915-0515 Attorney for Plaintiff Long (Dkt. No. 94), and excerpts of the Deposition of Terry Long be filed under seal and in redacted form. See Dkt. Nos. 101, 1¢ Court previously granted Defendant Brighthouse's Motions to Seal Exhibit 5 to the Expert Report of Terry Long and portions of the Report of Terry Long and, for the same reasons stated in the Court's Order granting Defendant Brighthouse's Motions to Seal, see I 100, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Seal the same. also requests that excerpts of the Deposition of Terry Long (“the Long Deposition’) be filed under seal because “it may contain sitive personal and proprietary commercial information.” Dkt. No. 102. The Court finds that Plaintiff's request to seal the Long until the parties are able to meet and confer to to determine which testimony, if any, is appropriate for redaction is necessary to tect proprietary and commercially sensitive trade-secret information. Although “[t]he common law right of public access to judicial is firmly rooted in our nation's history,” this right is not absolute, and courts “must balance competing considerations against” 1 of access. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); se Nixon v. Warner Commce'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) [T]he decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the | court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”). Thus, it is hereby ORDER! the Long Deposition may be filed under seal as an exhibit to Plaintiff's forthcoming Response to Defendant's Motion to Strike the □□□ of Terry Long. Within seven (7) days of the filing of the Long Deposition under seal, Plaintiff shall re-file the Long Deposition as in redacted form, as necessary.

Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate Dkt. Nos. 101 and 102.

ORDERED. Dated September 3, 2024 ST S DISTRICT JUDGE