The opinion
quinn emanuel trial lawyers | new york | i
COHEN MILSTEIN
“_ MEMO ENDORSED
VIA ECF
The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Re: lJowa Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. et al. v. Bank of Am. Corp. et al., No. 17-cv-6221 (KPF)
Dear Judge Failla:
Section 9 of the Protective Order (Dkt. No. 150), as amended by the Supplemented
Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. No. 228), provides that for any filing that quotes or refers to
discovery material that has been designated Confidential, Highly Confidential, or Highly
Confidential Data, the party “shall request to file such documents or portions thereof containing
or making reference to such material or information in redacted form or under seal.” Consistent
with the process this Court approved for such requests (Dkt. No. 408), the Parties now move for
sealing or redaction of Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Objections to Magistrate Judge
Cave’s Report and Recommendation Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel (Dkt. No. 597), Declaration of Daniel L.
Brockett In Support of Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Objections to Magistrate Judge
Cave’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 598), and Exhibits A, B, and C to Plaintiffs’
Response (Dkt. Nos. 598-1, 598-2, 598-3) (collectively “Plaintiffs’ Response”). The Parties’
justifications for sealing or redacting those materials under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006), and its progeny are as follows.
Plaintiffs’ Justifications and Designations
Plaintiffs’ Response quotes from, discusses, and makes reference to the substance of
documents designated “Confidential” and “Highly Confidential” under the Parties’ January 2,
2019 Protective Order (Dkt. No. 150). Such materials include trade secrets, other confidential
research, development, or commercial information, and other private or competitively sensitive
information, including personal data. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that the marked portions of
Plaintiffs’ Response dated September 29, 2022 be filed in redacted form. In addition, Plaintiffs
request that Exhibits B and C to Plaintiffs’ Response, (Dkt Nos. 598-2, 598-3), be filed under seal.
This is in accordance with Section 9 of the Protective Order, which provides that, for “papers
containing or making reference to the substance of [““Confidential”, “Highly Confidential”, or
“Highly Confidential Data”] material or information, [a Party] shall request to file such documents
or portions thereof containing or making reference to such material or information in redacted form
or under seal.” Plaintiffs’ Response likewise references materials previously entered in redacted
form and/or under seal. See e.g., Dkt. No. 589. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that the marked
portions of Plaintiffs’ Response be filed in redacted form and/or under seal, pursuant to Lugosch
v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) and its progeny.
Defendants’ Justifications and Designations
Plaintiffs’ Response quotes from, discusses, and makes reference to the substance of
documents and data designated “Confidential” and “Highly Confidential” under the Parties’
January 2, 2019 Protective Order (Dkt. No. 150). Such materials include trade secrets, other
confidential research, development, or commercial information, and other private or
competitively sensitive information, including personal data. Accordingly, Defendants request
that the marked portions of Plaintiffs’ Response be filed in redacted form. This 1s in accordance
with Section 9 of the Protective Order, which provides that for “papers containing or making
reference to the substance of [“Confidential”, “Highly Confidential”, or “Highly Confidential
Data” material or information, [a Party] shall request to file such documents or portions thereof
containing or making reference to such material or information in redacted form or under seal.”
Plaintiffs’ Response references materials previously entered in redacted form and/or under seal.
See e.g., Dkt. No. 589. Accordingly, Defendants request that marked portions of Plaintiffs’
Response be filed in redacted form and/or under seal, pursuant to Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) and its progeny.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Michael B. Eisenkraft /s/ Daniel L. Brockett
Michael B. Eisenkraft Daniel L. Brockett
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
PLLC SULLIVAN, LLP
Application GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to maintain docket
entries 597 and 598, as well as Exhibits A, B, and C to docket entry
598, under seal, viewable only to the parties and the Court.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket entry
#599.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 14, 2022 . ia
New York, New York Kittens Me Kile
HON. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE