KUSHNIRSKY GERBER PLLC 27 UNION SQUARE WEST, SUITE 301 NEW YORK, NY 10003 kgfirm.com O: (212) 882-1320 F: (917) 398-1487 Andrew Gerber, Member [email protected] February 9, 2024 Via ECF The Honorable Jennifer L. Rochon Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Letter Motion to File Documents Under Seal - Momentum Funding, LLC v. Nova Funding Corporation, et al., Case No. 23-cv-9392 Dear Judge Rochon, We represent Plaintiff Momentum Funding, LLC (“Plaintiff”) in the above-titled action. In accordance with Section 4(B)(ii) and 4(B)(iii)(b) of Your Honor’s Individual Rules of Practice, Plaintiff requests permission to file redacted copies of Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, the Affirmation of Andrew Gerber, Esq in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, and the Affirmation of Ryan Melcher, Esq. in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment and to file unredacted copies of these documents under seal. The information redacted in these documents discloses Plaintiff’s average annual and monthly revenue from 2015 to 2022, which is sensitive business information that courts routinely allow parties to file under seal due to the risk of competitive harm that would occur as a result of public disclosure. See e.g., Haley v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Asssoc. of Am.,

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2020) (“The specific dollar figure that [the defendant] seeks to file under seal is the type of information reflecting a company's revenues that is treated as confidential for competitive harm reasons.”); Playtex Prod., LLC v. Munchkin, Inc.,

, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2016) (granting the plaintiffs’ motion to seal statements related to their sales and revenue, noting that the plaintiffs “would be competitively harmed if they were revealed.”). Additionally, the limited nature of the redactions Plaintiff seeks to make weighs in favor of granting Plaintiff’s request. See Haley,

, at *1. Accordingly, the Court should find that Plaintiff’s privacy interests and “the likely harm [it] may suffer if this ‘highly proprietary material’ is revealed to [its] competitors outweigh the presumption of public access[.]” Playtex Prod., LLC,

, at *11. Respectfully submitted,

Andrew Gerber KUSHNIRSKY GERBER PLLC 27 Union Square West, Suite 301 New York, New York 10003 (212) 882-1320 Attorneys for Plaintiff Momentum Funding, LLC

Because the proposed redactions are limited and the redacted information played little to no role in the Court's decision on Plaintiff's default-judgment motion, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to file redacted copies of certain documents. See Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,

(2d Cir. 2016) ("Where a document's role in the performance of Article III duties is negligible, the weight of the presumption [of public access] is low." (ellipsis, quotation marks, and citation omitted)). The Court does not decide at this time whether the redacted information should be redacted in future filings. See

("Conversely, where documents directly affect an adjudication or are used to determine litigants’ substantive legal rights, the presumption of access is at its zenith, and thus can be overcome only by extraordinary circumstances." (quotation marks and citations omitted)). SO ORDERED. Dated: March 1, 2024 New York, New York : KB, wits L. ROCHON United States District Judge