Ko v. Swiftly Systems, Inc.

anrorda eisler Shen Mele ght, LLP harp saat Gee 7h loo cKnight Fane oue) sone www.sanfordheisler.com Russell Kornblith, Partner and General Counsel (646) 402-5646 [email protected] New York | Washington, DC | San Francisco | Palo Alto | Nashville | San Diego March 18, 2025 Via ECF and Email The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla MEMO ENDORSED United States District Court Southern District of New York Foley Square, Room 2103 New York, NY 10007 Failla [email protected] Re: Jiin Ko v. Swiftly Systems, Inc., et al, Case No. 25-CV-1833 (KPF) Dear Judge Failla, Pursuant to Rule 9 of the Court’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, Plaintiff Jiin Ko moves to file under seal an unredacted copy of her Supplemental Declaration in Support of a Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff makes this request because of the risks to potential witnesses discussed therein. She seeks to redact the names, titles, and other personally identifiable information of the current Swiftly employees with whom she has spoken about complaints against they may have against Swiftly and/or their willingness to provide testimony in support of her claims. The limited redactions that Plaintiff proposes will prevent her declaration from becoming “a vehicle for improper purposes”—namely, Swiftly’s retaliation against or intimidation of the potential witnesses identified in her declaration. See Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 142 (2d Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).

When a party seeks to limit public access to a judicial document, the court must “determine the weight of the presumption of access to that document.” Mirlis v. Greer, 952 F.3d 51, 59 (2d Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Here, that weight is “relatively modest”: Plaintiff’s sealing request “focuses only on redactions of certain names and limited, targeted information .. . As a result, the public will be able to read and understand each document even with the redacted information.”

Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Starstone Ins. SE, No. 1:21-CV-389-GHW, 2023 WL 7497858, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2023); see also United States v. UCB, Inc., No. 14-CV-2218 (TPG), 2017 WL 838198, at *5 (S.D.N-Y. Mar. 3, 2017) (permitting the redaction of a name due to fear of retaliation, where “[t]he public can still glean from this opinion the substance of [plaintiffs] arguments and the manner in which [the court] handled them”).

The court must also “identify all of the factors that legitimately counsel against disclosure of the judicial document, and balance those factors against the weight properly accorded the presumption of access.” Mirlis, 952 F.3d at 59. Here, “[t]he privacy interests of innocent third parties . . . should indeed weigh heavily,” given that several of Ms. Ko’s former colleagues have told her that they fear for their jobs if they speak up—the very fate that Ms. Ko has suffered. See Citgo Petroleum, 2023 WL 7497858, at *2 (quotation omitted) (permitting redactions where third parties had stated that they feared for their safety); Suppl. Ko Decl. ¶¶ 9-44. See also Matthews v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision, No. 9:17-CV-503, 2023 WL 2664418, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2023) (permitting the redaction of the identities of nonparty individuals who “may be subject to retaliation if their identities are revealed in the papers”).

The need to protect potential third-party witnesses outweighs the presumption of public access to the redacted portions of Plaintiff’s declaration. Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests that the Court authorize the sealed filing of her unredacted Supplemental Declaration in Support of a Preliminary Injunction with the narrowly tailored redactions presented to the Court in highlights. Plaintiff will also file a redacted, unsealed version.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Russell Kornblith Jeremy Heisler (JH-0145) Russell Kornblith (RK-1950) Kate MacMullin (5693882) Miranda Katz (6016075) SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP State Street, 37th Floor New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (646) 402-5650 Facsimile: (646) 402-5651 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff Jiin Ko cc: Counsel of record via ECF For the reasons stated above by counsel, the Court GRANTS the application to seal.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 22 and to maintain docket entry 24 under seal, viewable to the Court and parties only.

Dated: March 20, 2025 SO ORDERED.

New York, New York HON. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE