GreenbergTraurig Nilda M. Isidro Tel 212.801.9200 Fax 212.801.6400 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ August 15, 2025 VIA ECF Hon. Paul A. Engelmayer United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: Macioce v. Hisense USA Corporation, No. 25-cv-01608 (PAE) (BCM) — Letter Motion Requesting Permission to Seal Exhibit Dear Judge Engelmayer: On behalf of Defendant Hisense USA Corporation (“Hisense”), we write pursuant to Your Honor’s Individual Practice Rule 4(B)(2) (“Rule 4(B)(2)”), Section 6 of the ECF Rules & Instructions, and the Stipulated Confidentiality and Protective Order (the “Confidentiality Order,” ECF No. 40) to request permission to seal one exhibit submitted in connection with Hisense’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (the “Motion”) that contains Hisense’s commercially sensitive information. In accordance with Rule 4(B)(2), Hisense is concurrently filing under seal a copy of the exhibit. As detailed below, the proposed sealing protects Hisense’s commercially sensitive and proprietary business information, the disclosure of which would be likely to cause commercial injury. While we are respectful of the presumption of public access that attaches to “judicial documents” submitted in judicial proceedings, courts have long recognized that a litigant like Hisense does not blanketly waive genuine confidentiality and privacy interests by seeking to vindicate its rights through judicial processes. For those reasons, the Court must consider whether “countervailing factors” or “higher values” overcome the rebuttable presumption of public access. See, e.g., Stafford v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., 78 F Ath 62, 70 (2d Cir. 2023) (holding that “district court erred in failing to consider and give appropriate weight to the ‘countervailing factors’ at issue” and that such factors defeated presumption of access); Standard Inv. Chartered, Inc. v. Fin. Indus. Reg. Auth.,

, 617 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirming finding that presumption of access was overcome where disclosure of “confidential business information” may cause “competitive disadvantage”). In connection with the Motion, Hisense seeks to seal Exhibit A to the Declaration of Jianchun Zhang, which contains a log of the unique OSSN (also known as a “device ID”) assigned to Plaintiff Robert Macioce’s television as well as product improvement logs associated with the television. This document was marked “Confidential” pursuant to the Confidentiality Order. The information in this exhibit is derived from proprietary computer code and would provide competitors with insight into how Hisense’s televisions operate. Hisense maintains this information as confidential and its secrecy is a competitive asset. Courts consistently grant similar Traurig, LLP | Attorneys at Law Vanderbilt Avenue New York, New York 10017 | T +1 212.801.9200 | F +1 212.801.6400 www.gilaw.com

Hon. Paul A. Engelmayer August 15, 2025 Page 2 requests to seal where, as here, the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored and public disclosure of Hisense’s “confidential technical information . . . could allow competitors an unfair advantage, and would thus be highly prejudicial to [Hisense].” Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 18- CV-4500,

, at *7 (S.D.N-Y. Mar. 31, 2021) (granting in large part motions to redact and seal documents and exhibits where privacy interests and risk of competitive harm outweighed the presumption of public access); Personalized Media Comm’cns, LLC, v. Netflix, Inc., No. 20-CV-03708,

(S.D.N.Y Nov. 20, 2020) (granting defendant’s motion to redact sections of documents that contained defendant’s source code, noting that this was “highly confidential, competitively sensitive information”); Avocent Redmond Corp. v. Raritan Ams., Inc., No. 10-CV-6100,

, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2012) (“The parties may file the following documents under seal because they include . . . confidential source code . . . the disclosure of which could unfairly allow competitors to develop competing products’); see also Individual Practice Rule 4(B)(1) (permitting sealing and/or redactions of “proprietary or trade secret information” without prior court authorization). Additionally, the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored to prevent only the competitive harm that Hisense would risk by public disclosure of the television’s OSSN and product improvement logs. The other exhibits to Mr. Zhang’s declaration, which are not competitively sensitive, remain unredacted and visible to the public. See, e.g., W.J. Deutsch & Sons Ltd. v. Diego Zamora, S.A., No. 21-CV-11003,

, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2022) (granting motion to redact proprietary and commercially sensitive information where the “scope of the proposed redactions is reasonable and narrowly tailored to cover only the sensitive information that could lead to competitive disadvantage if disclosed.”). For the foregoing reasons, Hisense respectfully requests that the Court grant this letter motion and permit Hisense to file the exhibit at issue under seal. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Nilda M. Isidro Nilda M. Isidro ce: All Counsel of Record (via ECF) Court authorizes defendant Hisense USA Corporation ("Hisense") to file, on the public record, a redac of Exhibit A, and to file it under seal in unredacted form. For the avoidance of doubt, the Court det motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewal upon the Court's decision resolving Hisense's □□□□□□ arbitration. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions pending at Dockets 19, 41. SO ORDERED. p PAUL A. es MA oR United States District Judge August 18, 2025 Traurig, LLP | Attorneys at Law New York, New York Vanderbilt Avenue New York, New York 10017 | T +1 212.801.9200 | F +1 212.801.6400 www.gilaw.com