The opinion
ALAN L. FRANK e*+:= NEW JERSEY OFFICE
KYLE M. KULZER*+
SAMANTHA A. MILLROOD*+ 1103 LAUREL OAK ROAD
JORDAN E- FRANK "+ ALAN L. FRANK VOORHEES, N} 08083
JACLYN H. FRANK *+8
PATRICK W. BROWN “s LAW ASSOCIATE S, P.C. E-MAIL ADDRESS:
SERGIY MELNYK* Attorneys at Law afrank@alflaw.net
DEBRA E. MCGUCKIN
DAWA ML WELSH 135 OLD YORK ROAD
JENKINTOWN, PA 19046
(215) 935-1000
Certified by the NJ Supreme Court FAX NO. (215) 935-1110 Fe
as a Civil Trial Attorney
* MEMBER PA BAR USDC SDNY
+ MEMBER NJ BAR
MEMBER TL BAR DOCUMENT
A REGISTERED PATENT ATTORNEY ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
August 3, 2023 rn.
Via ECF DATE FILED:_ 8/15/2023 □□
Honorable Katharine H. Parker
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007
Re: Johnson v. Esports Entertainment Group — Civil Case 1:22-cv-10861
Plaintiff requests to file exhibits under seal for ECF 52 because opposing
counsel has labeled them confidential.
Dear Judge Parker:
I represent Plaintiff Grant Johnson. This is a letter requesting leave to file under seal
Exhibits D and E to Plaintiff's Brief at ECF 52. Plaintiffs only reason for not filing these
exhibits publicly is that Defendant labeled them confidential. In that regard, I asked defense
counsel to set out their reasons for labeling these documents confidential and offered to include
defense counsel’s response in this letter. Defense counsel has done so, and their response is
below. If the Court agrees with Defendant’s reasons, then the Court should grant this request. If
the Court disagrees with Defendant’s reasons, then the Court should deny this request and direct
Plaintiff to file the exhibits publicly.
Defendant: Defendant designated Mr. Khatri’s email communication as confidential because it
was not previously disclosed to the public. Nothing in Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant’s
motion to disqualify Alan L. Frank Law Associates, P.C. indicates otherwise. Moreover, under
paragraph 2 of the Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order (the
“Confidentiality Stipulation”) (ECF Doc. No. 34), the subject email relates to previously non-
disclosed financial information of Defendant. The fact that Plaintiff produced the email in
discovery is of no moment. Defendant respectfully requests the Court grant Defendant’s request
for a sealing order to maintain the confidentiality of this email and otherwise direct Plaintiff to
file the email under Seal per paragraph 11 of the Confidentiality Stipulation. Defendant thanks
the Court for its consideration in this matter.
Please visit us at www.alflaw.net
Respectfully,
/s/ Alan L. Frank
Alan L. Frank
SO ORDERED:
Vitae Faber
HON. KATHARINE H. PARKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 98/15/2023
Plaintiff's motion to seal is granted. Plaintiff moves to seal two exhibits
attached to his opposition to Defendant's motion to disqualify counsel.
(ECF No. 52.) These exhibits included Defendant's financial
information as discussed over emails (ECF No. 56) and other
communications with the Board of Directors and Investors (ECF No.
57). After review, the Court is satisfied that sealing the exhibits is
proper under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onodaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d
Cir. 2006). Given the nature of the exhibits as containing sensitive
financial information that was not disclosed to the public and the
nature of the motion as a motion to disqualify counsel, the public
presumption of access is lower than the parties’ interest in protecting
this type of information.
However, it is not clear from ECF No. 52 that there were exhibits to
that brief that are included with the brief but filed under seal.
Therefore, by August 18, 2023, Plaintiff is order to refile the brief at
ECF No. 52 with clear labels of the exhibit letter for each attachment,
including ones for exhibits D and E.
Please visit us at www.alflaw.net