Frommer v. MoneyLion Technologies Inc.

NEW YORK, NY 10005 DANIEL R. ANDERSON JONATHAN J. FRANKEL TELEPHONE: (212) 701-3000 MEGHAN N. McDERMOTT JOHN A. TRIPODORO HELENE R. BANKS ARIEL GOLDMAN WWW.CAHILL.COM WILLIAM J. MILLER GLENN J. WALDRIP, JR. ANIRUDH BANSAL PATRICK GORDON ___________ EDWARD N. MOSS HERBERT S. WASHER DAVID L. BARASH JASON M. HALL NOAH B. NEWITZ MICHAEL B. WEISS LANDIS C. BEST STEPHEN HARPER 1990 K STREET, N.W. WARREN NEWTON § DAVID WISHENGRAD BRADLEY J. BONDI WILLIAM M. HARTNETT WASHINGTON, DC 20006-1181 DAVID R. OWEN C. ANTHONY WOLFE BROCKTON B. BOSSON NOLA B. HELLER (202) 862-8900 JOHN PAPACHRISTOS COREY WRIGHT JONATHAN BROWNSON * CRAIG M. HOROWITZ LUIS R. PENALVER ELIZABETH M. YAHL DONNA M. BRYAN TIMOTHY B. HOWELL CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL (UK) LLP KIMBERLY PETILLO-DÉCOSSARD JOSHUA M. ZELIG JOYDEEP CHOUDHURI * DAVID G. JANUSZEWSKI 20 FENCHURCH STREET SHEILA C. RAMESH JAMES J. CLARK ELAI KATZ LONDON EC3M 3BY MICHAEL W. REDDY CHRISTOPHER W. CLEMENT JAKE KEAVENY +44 (0) 20 7920 9800 OLEG REZZY LISA COLLIER BRIAN S. KELLEHER ___________ THORN ROSENTHAL AYANO K. CREED RICHARD KELLY TAMMY L. ROY HA JS AP S JE OTER ND ENUA AU A A LN NA NEE M SR T I N M MC FM AT AR E. U S G .DI R S I RDD . A . A B TD WD F V E . AROL OI EF GSE AW I ZR H NM± RKN C O I FII N EN RN V SG A G A C N H KI E L BC J T M A J GO OEH RL EAE ED I IOÉ R Z AL L R FB AC N FK HI . R RE R TLU . . .A E .LR R L L MYEC. T A E K E V AZ EVSI Y I RB .H IS T LNE KE IB INER LR ER EG BO ‡ Y M O K A NN WRITER’S DIRECT NUMBER J A D J R R S AO O UN NI OA CN S SRD S THI ASA HRR A A NT EEE OH RH N.NW N DM S AA YS T S N . A M I U KC SL .A RL . .H V S S T. O MTE W US AT IR AC E MHA N H NG R I A A LCT IKF Z TF ZZ JIN R . I OE W N N ‡ §± N* E G T LS A AA A H YL T DDD D A E EMMM MN R RIII I ND TTT T E TTT T PA AE E EE UUND D DD BSD LT AA I AW N IR SS S C A A D AA A OLL N C S FISE A O O O AS S L O N TL OOI TI N L UC N C OYLI TILT RT Y HYO O N AR R E F Y I I RN N I C A (212)701-3833 January 7, 2025 Re: Frommer et al. v. MoneyLion Techs. Inc. et al., No. 23 Civ. 6339 (JMF) Dear Judge Furman: Pursuant to Rule 7.C of Your Honor’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, MoneyLion respectfully requests leave to file under seal specific portions of MoneyLion’s Proposed Opposition to Sellers’ Proposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law (the “Opposition Brief”).

The Opposition Brief contains information that Sellers and non-parties have designated as Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only under the Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order (ECF No. 74) (the “Protective Order”). Specifically, it contains excerpts and summaries of (i) documents produced by non-parties and designated as Confidential under the Protective Order; and (ii) documents that Sellers designated as Attorneys’ Eyes Only under the Protective Order. Therefore, MoneyLion respectfully requests that these portions of the Opposition Brief remain under seal until this Court has an opportunity to consider Sellers’ and the non-parties’ requests to keep these documents under seal.

MoneyLion has advised the appropriate parties that, under Rule 7(c)(i) of Your Honor’s rules, they have three business days to respond.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Sheila C. Ramesh Sheila C. Ramesh CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP -2- The Honorable Jesse M. Furman United States District Judge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Centre Street, Room 2202 New York, New York 10007 BY ECF ce: Counsel of Record The motion to seal is granted temporarily. That said, mere agreement between the parties to keep a docum confidential is not sufficient to keep a “judicial document” 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) □□□□□ cases). Thus, if any party believes that the materials at issue should remain sealed or redacted, that party shall file a letter brief, within three days and not to exceed three pages, showing why doing so is consisten with the presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents. See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid C of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006).

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 155.

SO ORDERED.

G J G 8, 2025