Vogel et al. v. TakeOne Network Corp. et al.

T. 212-609-6853 [email protected] www.mccarter.com of Court is directed to March 26, 2025 the motion at ECF VIA ECF Hon. Arun Subramanian, U.S.D.J.

DERED. United States District Court Southern District of New York Pearl Street, Courtroom 15A New York, New York 10007 U.S-D.J. Re: — Vogel et al. v. TakeOne Network Corp. et al., No. 22-cv-3991 (AS) 29, 2025 Dear Judge Subramanian: This firm represents plaintiff Michael Scott Vogel (“Plaintiff”) in the above- referenced matter. We write pursuant to this Court’s February 6, 2025 order (Dkt.

113) and paragraph 11(C) of the Court’s Individual Practices to explain the need to seal and redact the following materials filed in connection with Plaintiff's March 12, 2025 summary judgment opposition and Daubert opposition (Dkt. 152-63): e Seal —Leitner Declaration Exhibits 5, 45, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 75, and 93. e Redact— Paragraph 239 of the Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts; e Redact — Paragraphs 9 and 36 of the Plaintiff's Local Rule 56.1 Counter- Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts; In line with Plaintiff's earlier sealing and redaction requests in response to Defendants’ filings (Dkt. 150), Plaintiff again seeks to seal and redact only a limited subset of documents and information. Although there is a presumption of public access, courts in the Second Circuit must weigh “the competing interests of public access” against the “countervailing” interests of the parties, including privacy interests that militate against public disclosure. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006).

The redacted and sealed documents protect trade secret and confidential and sensitive technical and business information, which Plaintiff designated as “Confidential” under the Stipulated Protective Order. Dkt. 84. “Courts commonly find that documents that contain trade secrets, confidential research and development information, marketing plans . . . pricing information, and the like satisfy the sealing standard.” Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 2021 WL 1222122, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021). Specifically here: e Exhibit 5 is a document disclosing detailed product ideas and implementation details, which constitute confidential and sensitive technical, business, and trade secret information; Page 2 of 3  Exhibit 65 is a software design document disclosing detailed product ideas and implementation details, which constitute confidential and sensitive technical, business, and trade secret information;  Exhibits 45, 66, 67, 68, 69, and 75 are slide decks disclosing detailed product and implementation details, which constitute confidential and sensitive technical, business, and trade secret information;  Exhibit 93 is a draft advisor agreement containing sensitive business information related to Tradekraft’s internal operations and proposed equity structure, which constitutes confidential and sensitive technical and business information;  Paragraph 239 of the Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts references Exhibits 45, which constitutes confidential and sensitive technical, business, and trade secret information; and  Paragraphs 9 and 36 of the Plaintiff’s Local Rule 56.1 Counter-Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts reference Exhibit 45, which constitutes confidential and sensitive technical, business, and trade secret information.

All of the foregoing constitute Plaintiff’s trade secret and/or sensitive business information and should thus be protected from public view. Kewazinga Corp., 2021 WL 1222122, at *3. Further, the redactions are narrowly tailored and will not impact the public’s understanding of this action. Thus, the balance weighs in favor of granting Plaintiff’s motion. See, e.g., Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119–20; CBF Industria de Gusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc., 2021 WL 4135007, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2021) (acknowledging that protecting sensitive business information is a “countervailing factor” to presumed public access).

Additionally, at Defendants’ request, Plaintiff has submitted the following documents under seal: Plaintiff’s Exhibit Nos. 37, 52, 53, 54, and 89. Further, at Defendants’ request, redactions have been applied to portions of the following documents:  Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Local Rule 56.1 Statement (Dkt. 155) at ¶¶ 61, 76–79, 86, 89, 93, 95, 183, 188, 214, 222, 232, 241, 245, 251, 255, 256, 264, 267, 269, 270, 271, 276, 285, 308.  Plaintiff’s Local Rule 56.1 Counter-Statement (Dkt. 160) at ¶¶ 30, 42, 72, 73, 75.  Plaintiff’s Exhibit Nos. 20, 31, 33, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 51, 55, 61, 76, and 90.

Page 3 of 3 Pursuant to Section 11(C) of the Court’s Individual Practices, Defendants will separately write to the Court to justify Defendants’ sealing requests within three (3) days.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Curtis B. Leitner Curtis B. Leitner cc: All counsel of record (via ECF)