DavisPolk fMoas 450 Lexington Avenue [email protected] New York, NY 10017 davispolk.com USDC SDNY MEMO ENDORSED PLECTRONI ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: October 20, 2025 DATE FILED: 10/21/2025 Honorable Valerie E. Caproni United States District Judge Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Valelly v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Case No. 1:19-cv-07998 (VEC) Dear Judge Caproni: Pursuant to Rule 5.B of the Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases and the August 6, 2025 Order approving the parties’ proposed sealing procedures (ECF No. 304), Defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (“Merrill’ or “Defendant”) moves for leave to file in redacted form certain exhibits to Plaintiffs Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Motion for Class Certification (the “Reply’). This letter motion follows a meet and confer process, where defense counsel advised Plaintiff that it wishes to redact certain information in the aforementioned papers that Merrill has designated as confidential or highly confidential under the governing protective order (referred to herein as “the Relevant Material”). The positions of the parties are set forth below. Merrill’s Position Merrill seeks to redact certain confidential personally identifiable information referenced in Exhibits B, C, and D to the Reply. These exhibits are email exchanges between Plaintiff and two Merrill financial advisors, containing the financial advisors’ Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System IDs, email addresses, and phone numbers, which Merrill seeks to redact. As recognized in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, there are “countervailing factors” to the presumption of access including “the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.”

(2d Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Amodeo,

(2d Cir. 1995)). Such privacy interests are present here. Merrill has not sought to redact the Reply Memorandum or the substance of the exhibits. Instead, it seeks to redact the personally identifiable information of its employees in light of the substantial privacy interests of non-parties and the absence of any relevance of such information to the adjudication of the class certification briefing or the litigation as a whole. See, e.g., Cohen v. Gerson Lehrman Grp., Inc., No. 09-cv-4352 (PKC),

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2011) (permitting redaction of “individual contact information, such as e-mail addresses, home addresses and phone numbers,” because “[s]uch information is not at issue in this dispute and the individuals have a countervailing privacy interest in their non-disclosure”); Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 18-cv- 4500 (GHW),

, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021) (permitting redaction of employees’ e- mail addresses because “[t]he personal information of non-parties, including e-mail addresses, is not relevant to the adjudication of the motions at hand”); In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig., No. 14-mc-2542 (VSB),

, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2023) (permitting redaction of employees’ phone numbers and email addresses), reconsideration denied, No. 14-mc-2542 (VSB),

(S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2023).

Davis Polk Honorable Valerie E. Caproni

Plaintiff's Position Plaintiff is skeptical of the proposition that the information at issue must be redacted. However, as the information appears irrelevant to the substance of the litigation, Plaintiff takes no position on Merrill's request.

Relevant Material Merrill’s Proposal and its Basis Plaintiff Ex. B Portions of this document should be redacted because it contains personally identifiable information related to a Merrill financial advisors Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System ID, email address, and phone numbers. Plaintiff Ex. C Portions of this document should be redacted because it contains personally identifiable information related to a Merrill financial advisor's Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System ID, email address, and phone number, Plaintiff Ex. D Portions of this document should be redacted because it contains personally identifiable information related to a Merrill financial advisors Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System ID, email address, and phone numbers. The parties thank the Court for its attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted,

WOLF POPPER LLP DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP

/s/ Adam J. Blander /s/ Lara Samet Buchwald Robert C. Finkel Lara Samet Buchwald Adam J. Blander Cristina M. Rincon Philip M. Black Chui-Lai Cheung Antoinette Adesanya 450 Lexington Avenue Emer C. Burke New York, New York 10017 845 Third Avenue Tel.: 212.450.4000 New York, New York 10022 Tel.: 212.759.4600 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Attorneys for Defendant Merrill Lynch, Putative Class Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and Non-party Bank of America, N.A.

CC: All counsel of record (via ECF)

October 20, 2025

Application GRANTED. SO ORDERED.

10/21/2025 HON. VALERIE CAPRONI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE