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

District Court, S.D. New York

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

Trial Court Opinion

CRAIG 6. BROD ROGER A. COOPER AROM M. ZUCKERMAN CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP ERO nose ao □□□□□ ZUCKERMAN JEFFAEY S. LEWIS AMY R, SHAPIAD □□□□ □ MCOONALO PAUL J. SHIM JENNIFER KENNEDY PARK □□ JAMAL FULTON STEVEN L. WILNER ELIZABETH LENAS PAUL □□□□□□□□□□ . Bawa t One an ncAMe CURE fame foot 4 □□□□□□□ SIMMONS One Liberty Plaza woe Acetevemane evernatenovoowen □□ New York, NY 10006-1470 SORGE U. JUAHTORENA ADRIAN LEIPSIO □□□□□□□□ PARKER . JEFFREY □□ ROSENTHA ROAM J. BRENNEMAN JONATHAN MENDES DEOLI T: +1 212 225 2000 MICHAEL D. DAYAN □ ARID, MACKINNON BRANDON M HAMMER F: +1 212 225 3999 JEFFREYD.KARPR □ JAREDGERBER □□□□□□□□ BOSDANOVICH Francesa Sante? □□□ □□□□□ clearygottlieb.com JASON FACTOR ELIZABETH DYER. □□□□□□ □□□□□□ JOON H. KIM DAVID HERRINGTON BOARS MORAG Satie Gane □□□□□□□□□ AMERICAS ASIA EUROPE & MIDDLE EAST Lisa Senwerrzen DANIEL G REvNOLDS □□□□□ □□□□ “ NEW YORK BEIJING ABUDHABL = LONDON CHANTAL E KORDULA SOHNA KUPIEC □□□□□□□□ W.GIFFORD SAN FRANCISCO HONG KONG BRUSSELS MILAN GENET J. O'RE Ly JOSEPH LANZK RON DAVID W.S. YUDIN SAQ PAULO SEOUL COLOGNE PARIS Seana ONeaL NATHERINER REAVES □□□□ □□□□□ SILICON VALLEY FRANKFURT ROME DESOMANNORT ELANAS BRONSON □□□□□□ WALLANCE WASHINGTON, D.C. MATTHEW P SALERNO MANUEL SILVA ALEXANDER JANGHORBAL WieToRL NOU UMMA SENaHaN □□□□□□□ LEE D: +1 212 225 2333

Fe 9, 2024 Plaintiff's application is GRANTED. Plaintiff's February 9, 2024 Via ECF and the documents attached thereto as Exhibits 2 and 3 (ECF 60, 61) shall remain under seal. The Hon. Robyn F. Tamofsky The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse |ecr so. United States Courthouse SOLORDERED: □ 500 Pearl Street, DATED: February 12, 2024 (lew New York, NY 10007 New York, New York ROBYN F. TARNOFSKY UNITED STATES □□□□□□□□□□ Re: Thales Avionics, Inc. v. L3 Technologies, Inc., No. 24-cv-112 (JGK) (RFT) Dear Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky: I write on behalf of Plaintiff Thales Avionics, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Thales Avionics”) pursuant to pursuant to Rule IIE of Your Honor’s Individual Practices to respectfully request leave to file in redacted form Plaintiffs Letter, dated February 9, 2024 (“Plaintiff's Letter”), and Exhibits 2 and 3 to Plaintiff's Letter (together, the “Confidential Documents”). Exhibit 2 is a recent communication covered by the Confidentiality Agreement between Thales, S.A. and L3Harris Technologies, Inc. dated May 24, 2023, ECF No. 12-1. Exhibit 3 is a document 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, and as to which Your Honor granted Defendant’s motion to file under seal, ECF No. 58. “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 Exhibit 2 may contain competitively sensitive information covered by the parties’ non-disclosure agreement, and because Your Honor ordered Exhibit 3 to be produced for “outside counsel’s eyes only,” Plaintiff respectfully asks that the Court grant this Motion. 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)

Reference

Status
Unknown