Select Research Ltd. v. Amazon.Com, Inc.

WIiVEZ Wi. AABA PE TINCARA CAA FTE OAMAT TAT PRI VV Po □□ □□□ □□ D: 213 788 4543 New York, NY 10014 T: 646 930 4046 F: 888 775 0898 HUESTON HENNIGAN ip October 15, 2024 VIA ECF The Honorable Jesse M. Furman United States District Court Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall Courthouse Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: Select Research, Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, LLC, 24-cv-06419-JMF Dear Judge Furman: On behalf of Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, LLC (“Defendants”) in the above- referenced action, we write pursuant to Rule 7(C) of the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices to request that Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Moez M. Kaba in support of Defendants’ motion for the issuance of a Letter of Request for International Assistance pursuant to the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Letter of Request’) be filed provisionally under seal.

As is discussed in Defendants’ memorandum in support of their motion for the issuance of the Letter of Request, SRL previously filed Exhibit 2 in a predecessor action. See Select Research, Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-cv-865 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 2023) (Dkt. 25). In that action, SRL asked the court to seal Exhibit 2 because it allegedly contains “highly confidential business information related to SRL.” /d.

While Defendants contest that Exhibit 2 contains any confidential information, and reserve the right to challenge any assertion of confidentiality over that information in the future, they respectfully request that the Court provisionally seal Exhibit 2 in light of SRL’s representations in the prior action and to provide SRL an opportunity to seek sealing if it can satisfy the requirements for doing so.

Defendants have asked SRL’s counsel whether SRL intends to seal Exhibit 2 in this action but have not received a response. The motion to seal is granted temporarily. That said, mere agreement between the parties to keep a document confidential is not sufficient to keep a “judicial documer Respectfully submitted, sealed or redacted. See, e.g., United States v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., No. 12- / CV-7527 (JMF), 2015 WL 3999074, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2015) (citing cases).

69 Thus, if any party believes that the materials at issue should remain sealed or redact that party shall file a letter brief, within three days and not to exceed three pages, Moez M. Kaba showing why doing so is consistent with the presumption in favor of public access t HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP judicial documents. See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). If neither party files a motion to seal by October 21, cc: All counsel of record (via ECF) 2024, then Defendants shall file Exhibit 2 on the public docket no later than Octobe 24, 2024. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 18. for 6784837 AY,