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

SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP Broad Areet ecg raizeseaaee News Vork, New Yorks 10004-2498 February 6, 2024 Defendant's application is GRANTED. Documents attached as Via ECF Exhibits 1 through 7 to the White declaration (ECF Nos. 56, 57 —_ remain under seal.

The Hon. Robyn F. Tarnofsky, ee ce of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse, United States Courthouse, Dated: February 7, 2024 OREERED = Pearl Street, New York, New York lwaown— New York, NY 10007. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE Re: Thales Avionics, Inc. v. L3 Technologies, Inc., No. 24-cv-112 (JGK) (RFT) Dear Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky: On behalf of Defendant L3 Technologies, Inc. (together with its parent, L3Harris Technologies, Inc., “L3Harris”), and in accordance with Rule III-E of Your Honor’s Individual Practices, I respectfully request that the Court permit L3Harris to file under seal certain exhibits attached to my Supplemental Declaration (the “Declaration’’) in support of Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in Aid of Arbitration. In particular, L3Harris seeks permission to file under seal Exhibits 1 through 7 to my Declaration attached hereto.

These exhibits contain confidential and competitively sensitive information that is similar to the materials that this Court has previously ordered filed under seal. (ECF Nos. 36, 40.) L3Harris incorporates and relies on the arguments set forth in its prior letter to seal such material. (ECF No. 30.) The exhibits to the present Declaration contain documents that Plaintiff produced in response to Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky’s order, which permitted Plaintiff to designate the documents “as highly confidential and for outside counsel’s eyes only.” (ECF No. 45.) All of these documents, which consist of confidential communications produced to L3Harris by Plaintiff, are designated “‘as highly confidential and for outside counsel’s eyes only.”

Unlike documents such as a complaint or a motion for summary judgment, these communications are not “highly relevant to the exercise of Article III power” and there is not a strong public interest in their disclosure. Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 142 (2d Cir. 2016).

The Hon. Robyn F. Tarnofsky -2-

For the foregoing reasons, L3Harris respectfully requests that the Court permit Exhibits 1 through 7 to be filed under seal.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Thomas C. White Thomas C. White cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF)