anrorda eisler Sao ee ap harp states 7 Hoo cKnight Bap: (4) oe www.sanfordheisler.com Russell Kornblith, Partner and General Counsel (646) 402-5646 rkornblith @sanfordheisler.com New York | Washington, DC | San Francisco | Palo Alto | Nashville | San Diego April 11, 2025 Via ECF and Email The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla MEMO ENDORSED United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 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, Plaintiff Jiin Ko moves to redact the portions of the transcript of the preliminary injunction hearing presented to the Court in highlights. These highlights reflect instances where the subjects of Ms. Ko’s sealed declaration were referred to either by name or by identifying title. Prelim. Inj. Hr’g Tr. at 22:23, 31:25; see ECF Nos. 24, 36. The limited redactions that Plaintiff proposes will prevent the hearing transcript from becoming “a vehicle for improper purposes”—namely, Swiftly’s retaliation against or intimidation of the potential witnesses identified. See Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,

(2d Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Here, as with Ms. Ko’s request to seal her Supplemental Declaration, the weight of the presumption of access to the document is “relatively modest”: Plaintiff's redaction 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,

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2023); see also United States v. UCB, Inc., No. 14-CV-2218 (TPG),

, 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 [plaintiff's] arguments and the manner in which [the court] handled them”). And as with Ms. Ko’s request to seal her Supplemental Declaration, “[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,

, at *2 (quotation omitted) (permitting redactions where third parties had stated that they feared for their safety); ECF No. 24 §§ 9-44. See also Matthews v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision, No. 9:17-CV-503,

, 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”).

April 9, 2025 Page 2 of 2 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 redaction of the highlighted portions of the preliminary injunction hearing transcript. Plaintiff has conferred with Defendants, and Defendants do not oppose the proposed redactions. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Russell Kornblith Jeremy Heisler (JH-0145) Russell Kornblith (RK-1950) Kate MacMullin (5693882) Miranda Katz (6016075) SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 17 State Street, 37" Floor New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (646) 402-5646 Facsimile: (646) 402-5651 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff Jiin Ko cc: Counsel of record via ECF

Application GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 63. Dated: April 16, 2025 SO ORDERED. New York, New York Kithirnes Valle bull HON. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE