Thales Avionics, Inc. v. L3 Technologies, Inc.

CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP RICHARD J COOPER TLLANTSU. KENNETH □ BLAZEJEWSK JEFFREY S. LEWIS AMY R. SHAPIRO MARK E. MCDONALD PAUL J. SHIM JENNIFER KENNEDY PARK F. JAMAL FULTON STEVEN L. WILNER ELIZABETH LENAS. PAUL V. IMPERATORE . DAVID C. LOPEZ LUKE A. BAREFOOT CLAYTON SIMMONS One Liberty Plaza DASSIN BaNeLAN □□□□□□□ PETTY New York, NY 10006-1470 JORGE U JUANTORENA ADRIAN LEIPSIC SUSANNA® PARKER DAVID LEINWAND. ELIZABETH VICENS THOMAS S. KESSLER T: +1 212 225 2000 JEFFREY A. ROSENTHAL ADAM J. BRENNEMAN JONATHAN MENDES DE OLI MICHAEL D. DAYAN ARID. MACKINNON BRANDON M. HAMMER F: +1 212 225 3999 SEFTREYD KARPF JAREDGEREER □□□□□□□□ BOGDANOVICH FRANCISCO L. CESTERO RISHI ZUTSHI MATTHEW G. BRIGHAM . FRANCESCA L. ODELL JANE VANLARE RESIDENT PARTNERS, clearygottlieb.com JASON FACTOR ELIZABET= DYER JUDITH KASSEL JOON H. KIM DAVID H. HERRINGTON BOAZS. MORAG ALAN M. LEVINE KIMBERLY R. SPOERRI □□□□□ □□ ILGENFRITZ MARGARET S. PEPONIS. AARON J. MEYERS ANDREW WEAVER AMERICAS ASIA EUROPE & MIDDLE EAST LISA M. SCHWEITZER DANIEL C. REYNOLDS CATHERINE S. GRIMM JUAN G. GIRALDEZ ABENAA. MAINOO JOHN V. HARRISON NEWYORK BEIJING ABUDHABI LONDON Duane MesAUeHt Hone ganeovs8 □□□ □ SAN FRANCISCO HONG KONG BRUSSELS MILAN BENET J. O'REILLY JOSEPH LANZKRON DAVID W.S. YUDIN SAO PAULO SEOUL COLOGNE PARIS SEAN A.O'NEAL KATHERINE □□ REAVES □□□□ □□□□□ SILICON VALLEY FRANKFURT ROME BEBOZAS NORTH ELANAS. BRONSON CARINA □□ □□□□□□□□ WASHINGTON, D.C. MATTHEW P, SALERNO MANUEL SILVA ALEXANDER JANGHORBAI MICHAEL J. ALBANO KYLE A. HARRIS. JOSHUA □□□□□ VICTORL. HOU LINA BENSMAN CHARITY E. LEE D:; +1 212 225 2333 [email protected] February 1, 2024 Plaintiff's application is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Letter, dated Via ECF February 1, 2024 and corresponding exhibits attached there shall remain under seal.

Hon. Robyn F. Tarnofsky, . The Court of the Clerk is respfectfully directed to terminate Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, |_ecr 43.

United States Courthouse, SO ORDERED _ Pearl St., Dated: February 2, 2024 lewaown— New York, NY 10007-1312. New York, NY ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE □□□□ Re: Thales Avionics, Inc. v. L3 Technologies, Inc., No. 24-cv-112 (JGK) Dear Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky: I write on behalf of Plaintiff Thales Avionics, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Thales Avionics”) pursuant to Rule II.E of Your Honor’s Individual Practices to respectfully request leave to file under seal Plaintiff's Letter, dated February 1, 2024 (‘Plaintiffs Letter”), in response to the Court’s order (ECF No. 41), Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Letter (“Exhibit A”), and Exhibit B to Plaintiff's Letter (“Exhibit B”) (collectively, “Confidential Documents”).

Exhibit A and Exhibit B are documents that Your Honor ordered to be “treated as highly confidential with disclosure limited to outside counsel’s eyes only” once produced by Defendant. ECF No. 41 at 1. Moreover, Defendant moved for its letter referring to and describing some of the contents of Exhibit A and Exhibit B (ECF No. 38) to be filed under seal because it “contains confidential and competitively sensitive information” and because the communications described therein, including Exhibit A and Exhibit B, were “made in connection with a competitive bidding process that has not yet resulted in a final sale.” ECF No. 37.

“Established factors and values that can outweigh the presumption of public access include . . . business secrecy . . . and privacy interests.” Valassis Commce’ns, Inc. v. News Corp., No. 17-CV-7378 (PKC), 2020 WL 2190708, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2020). Courts have granted motions to seal commercially sensitive information, which, if disclosed, could cause competitive harm. See, e.g., Rubik’s Brand Ltd. v. Flambeau, Inc., No. 17-CV-6559 (PGG) Hon. Robyn F. Tarnofsky, p. 2 (KHP), 2021 WL 1085338, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2021) (granting motion to seal license agreements, invoices, and documents relating to marketing strategy); Tropical Sails Corp. v. Yext, Inc., No. 14 CIV. 7582, 2016 WL 1451548, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2016) (sealing exhibits that would cause defendant “competitive injury” if disclosed). Cf United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Commercial competitors seeking an advantage over rivals need not be indulged in the name of monitoring the courts.”).

Plaintiff has no objection to filing the Confidential Documents publicly.

However, because Your Honor ordered Exhibit A and Exhibit B to be produced for “outside counsel’s eyes only,” because Defendant maintains that Exhibit A and Exhibit B 1s a confidential communication that contains competitively sensitive information, and because Plaintiffs Letter describes and refers to the contents of Exhibit A and Exhibit B, Plaintiff respectfully asks that the Court provisionally grant this Motion until Defendant has an opportunity to be heard on whether the Confidential Documents should remain under seal.

CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Your Honor enter an Order allowing Plaintiff to file the Confidential Documents under seal.

Respectfully submitted, Mark E. McDonald cc: All Counsel of Record (via ECF)