Wwww.GVLAW.COM GALLO VITUCCI KLAR $$ es | | LP Crystal Monahan Partner Application GRANTED. For Substantially the reasons stated in 90 Broad Street, 12 Floor ECF No. 15, the Court finds the presumption of public access New York, NY 10004 overcome. Petitioner may file its Reply under seal. The Court has [email protected] . . . 212-683-7100 ext. 2144 reviewed the proposed redactions and find them appropriately tailored. SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate ECF No. 23. ve A— October 13, 2025 Dated: October 14, 2025 Dale E. Ho New York, New York United States District Judge Via ECF The Honorable J. Dale E. Ho United States District Judge Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007

Re: TDC National Assurance Company v. Marsh USA, LLC f/k/a Marsh USA Ince. Case No.: 25-cv-8095-DEH Your Honor: We represent Petitioner TDC National Assurance Company (“TDC”), a participant in the confidential arbitration underlying the above-referenced action. We submit this letter motion to ask this Court to seal portions of TDC’s Reply in Support of its Petition to Enforce Arbitral Subpoena (“Reply”), supporting Declaration of Bruce M. Friedman (“Declaration”), and one of the exhibits thereto. Specifically, TDC asks this Court to approve the redacted versions attached as Exhibits A and B, as the publicly available versions of TDC’s Reply and Declaration, and also seal Exhibit 4 to TDC’s Reply, which is an arbitration panel ruling. This afternoon we requested Acadia’s consent to the proposed redactions and sealing, but have not yet gotten a response. TDC respectfully refers this Court to the previously filed and unopposed letter motion of Acadia Assurance Company (“Acadia”) [Docket No. 15] for further discussion of the underlying arbitration and the scope of the Confidentiality Agreement the parties executed therein. For the same reasons discussed in Acadia’s letter motion, TDC submits that parts of TDC’s Reply brief and the Declaration contain confidential Arbitration Information that TDC agreed to keep confidential in court proceedings pursuant to the Confidentiality Agreement. TDC accepts and does not oppose Acadia’s position set forth in its letter motion [Docket No. 15] that the confidential information contained in TDC’s Reply and Declaration is not “necessary” to this Court’s ability to rule on the Petition, which addresses only whether the Arbitration Panel’s subpoena for trial Manhattan (Downtown) 90 Broad Street, 12 Floor, New York, NY 10004 Manhattan (Midtown) 630 3rd Ave, 3 Floor, New York, NY 10017 Westchester 3 West Main Street, Suite 302, Irvington, NY 10533 Long Island 100 Crossways Park West, Suite 305, Woodbury, NY 11797 New Jersey 3 University Plaza, Suite 402, Hackensack, NJ 07601 California 1212 Broadway Plaza, Suite 2100, Walnut Creek, CA 94596

testimony of a corporate representative of a third-party 1s enforceable. Such information includes: ** Non-public facts disclosed or at issue in the Arbitration; ** TDC’s views as to the merits of its legal defenses in the Arbitration; * Characterizations of, and quotations from, the Panel’s rulings; and Procedural matters in the Arbitration. In deciding whether to seal filed materials, the Court must conduct a three-step inquiry: (1) determine “whether the record at issue is a judicial document — a document to which the presumption of public access attaches;” (2) “if the record sought is determined to be a judicial document, the court proceeds to determine the weight of the presumption of access to that document;” and (3) identify the “factors that legitimately counsel against disclosure of the judicial document and balance those factors against the weight properly accorded the presumption of access.” Giuffre v. Maxwell,

, 175 (2d Cir. 2025) (citing Stafford v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 78 4th 62, 69-70 (2d Cir. 2023), cert. denied,

(2024) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). TDC relies on and respectfully refers the Court to the discussion and argument set forth in Acadia’s letter motion regarding sealing [Docket No. 15 at pp. 3-4]. For the same reasons set forth in Acadia’s letter motion, TDC respectfully requests that the Court approve the redacted Reply and Declaration (Exs. A & B) for the public docket, and also seal Exhibit 4 to the Reply.

Sincerely, Cagetal Wlenahanr Crystal Monahan

Ce: — All Counsel of Record (via ECF)