The opinion
United Launch Alliance, LLC v L3Harris Cincinnati
Elecs. Corp.
2025 NY Slip Op 30407(U)
January 30, 2025
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 653704/2024
Judge: Andrea Masley
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
INDEX NO. 653704/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 48
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
UNITED LAUNCH ALLIANCE, LLC, INDEX NO. 653704/2024
Plaintiff,
MOTION DATE --
-v-
MOTION SEQ. NO. 003
L3HARRIS CINCINNATI ELECTRONICS CORPORATION,
F/K/A L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CINCINNATI
ELECTRONICS CORPORATION AND D/B/A SYSTEMS DECISION + ORDER ON
COMPANY OF L3 TECHNOLOGIES, L3HARRIS MOTION
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and L3 TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
HON. ANDREA MASLEY:
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 48, 49, 50, 51, 52,
53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67
were read on this motion to/for SEAL .
In motion sequence 003, plaintiff moves pursuant to the Uniform Rules of the
New York State Trial Courts (22 NYCRR) § 216.1 to seal five exhibits to the complaint,
namely, (i) Long Term Alliance Agreement (NYSCEF Doc. No. [NYSCEF] 51) and
subsequent “additional contracts related to the design, development, and manufacture
of the [inertial measurement unit] and other avionics components”, namely, (ii)
Development Contract (NYSCEF 52), (iii) Memorandum of Understanding (NYSCEF
53), (iv) Block Buy Contract (NYSCEF 54), and (v) Terms and Conditions (NYSCEF 55).
(NYSCEF 50, Garth Englund III1 aff ¶ 9.)
Plaintiff also seeks to redact exhibits eight through ten, namely, (viii) plaintiff’s
Default Notice (NYSCEF 58 & 59), (ix) defendant L3Harris Technologies, Inc.’s
1Englund is plaintiff’s Senior Leader for Major Subcontracts, Avionics, and Launch
Operations. (NYSCEF 50, Englund aff ¶ 1.)
653704/2024 UNITED LAUNCH ALLIANCE, LLC vs. L3HARRIS CINCINNATI ELECTRONICS Page 1 of 6
CORPORATION, F/K/A L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CINCINNATI ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
AND D/B/A SYSTEMS COMPANY OF L3 TECHNOLOGIES ET AL
Motion No. 003
1 of 6
[* 1]
INDEX NO. 653704/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2025
response thereto (NYSCEF 60 & 61), and (x) the termination notice (NYSCEF 62 &
63).2
The motion is unopposed by defendant L3 Technologies, Inc. Defendants
L3Harris Cincinnati Electronics Corporation and L3 Harris Technologies, Inc. stipulated
to the relief sought. (NYSCEF 64, Stipulation.) There is no indication that the press or
public have an interest in this matter.
Legal Standard
“Under New York law, there is a broad presumption that the public is entitled to
access to judicial proceedings and court records.” (Mosallem v Berenson, 76 AD3d
345, 348 [1st Dept 2010] [citations omitted].) The public’s right to access is, however,
not absolute, and under certain circumstances, “public inspection of court records has
been limited by numerus statutes.” (Id. at 349.) One of those statutes is section 216.1
(a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, which empowers courts to seal documents
upon a written finding of good cause. It provides:
“Except where otherwise provided by statute or rule, a court shall not enter
an order in any action or proceeding sealing the court records, whether in
whole or in part, except upon a written finding of good cause, which shall
specify the grounds thereof. In determining whether good cause has been
shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as of the
parties. Where it appears necessary or desirable, the court may prescribe
appropriate notice and opportunity to be heard.” (Uniform Rules for Trial
Cts [22 NYCRR] § 216.1.)
The “party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstrate
compelling circumstances to justify restricting public access” to the documents.
2Plaintiff filed all ten exhibits to the complaint in connection with this motion “to ensure
all exhibits to the Complaint are filed together.” (NYSCEF 50, Englund aff at 1 n 1.)
Plaintiff is not moving to seal or redact exhibits six or seven.
653704/2024 UNITED LAUNCH ALLIANCE, LLC vs. L3HARRIS CINCINNATI ELECTRONICS Page 2 of 6
CORPORATION, F/K/A L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CINCINNATI ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
AND D/B/A SYSTEMS COMPANY OF L3 TECHNOLOGIES ET AL
Motion No. 003
2 of 6
[* 2]
INDEX NO. 653704/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2025
(Mosallem, 76 AD3d at 349 [citations omitted].) Good cause must “rest on a sound
basis or legitimate need to take judicial action.” (Danco Lab Ltd. v Chemical Works of
Gedeon Richter, Ltd., 274 AD2d 1, 8 [1st Dept 2000] [internal quotation marks omitted].)
In the business context, courts have sealed records where the disclosure of
documents “could threaten a business’s competitive advantage.” (Mosallem, 76 AD3d
at 350 [citations omitted].) Records concerning financial information may be sealed
where there has not been a showing of relevant public interest in the disclosure of that
information. (See Dawson v White & Case, 184 AD2d 246, 247 [1st Dept 1992].) A
party “ought not to be required to make their private financial information public ... where
no substantial public interest would be furthered by public access to that information.”
(D’Amour v Ohrenstein & Brown, 17 Misc 3d 1130 [A], 2007 NY Slip Op 52207[U], *20
[Sup Ct, NY County 2007] [citations omitted].)
A confidentiality agreement entered for purposes of exchanging information does
not constitute good cause to seal. Rather, it demonstrates the steps taken to protect
confidential information and can lend support to an argument for redacting.
(See Linkable Networks, v Mastercard Inc., 75 Misc 3d 1231[A], *3 [Sup Ct, NY County
2022].) Parties may designate information as confidential, but it is another matter
whether the information can be shielded from the public. In sum, a confidentiality
agreement does not excuse the parties “from making a showing of good cause why
certain information should be redacted.” (See Eccles v Shamrock Capital Advisors,
LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 32730[U], *5 [Sup Ct, NY County 2023].)
653704/2024 UNITED LAUNCH ALLIANCE, LLC vs. L3HARRIS CINCINNATI ELECTRONICS Page 3 of 6
CORPORATION, F/K/A L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CINCINNATI ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
AND D/B/A SYSTEMS COMPANY OF L3 TECHNOLOGIES ET AL
Motion No. 003
3 of 6
[* 3]
INDEX NO. 653704/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2025
Discussion
Sealing
Englund explains that sealing the contracts between the parties (i.e. the first five
exhibit to the complaint) is necessary to protect commercially sensitive and proprietary
information. (NYSCEF 50, Englund aff ¶ 7.) Specifically, he states that Long Term
Alliance Agreement details plaintiff’s “commercially-sensitive and proprietary information
and the Parties’ competitively-sensitive expectations of their future business dealings,
including anticipated future payment structures; flight hardware deliverables;
engineering, design, and manufacturing processes and services; projected project
pricing and investment schedules; and confidential ground rules and assumptions.” (Id.)
Englund explains that the remaining contracts (i.e., exhibits two through five) likewise
“contain the Parties’ confidential and proprietary information and business
strategies, dealings, and agreements, including details of their agreed-upon
avionics hardware deliverables, the timeline and procedures for the development
and manufacture of that hardware, competitively-sensitive pricing and other
financial information related to the development and manufacture of the
hardware, and the terms and conditions with which the Parties agreed to comply.
The Terms and Conditions additionally contain specific provisions and exceptions
applicable to the Parties’ Contracts with each other, which, in some instances,
are different from the terms and conditions applicable to [plaintiff]’s contracts with
others.” (Id. ¶ 10.)
Englund avers that disclosure of these contracts would harm plaintiff’s
competitive advantage:
“Keeping Exhibits 1-5 confidential is a critical component of the Parties’ business
dealings and important to maintaining [plaintiff]’s competitive position in the
marketplace. [Plaintiff] often awards work on its launch vehicle projects through a
competitive bidding process, which requires suppliers, like [defendant] and
others, to submit competitive proposals to secure the work. Allowing other
suppliers and launch vehicle manufacturers to access the terms of the Parties’
business dealings and Contracts, including as reflected in Exhibits 1-5, could
undercut the competitive process, harm [plaintiff]’s competitive bidding
653704/2024 UNITED LAUNCH ALLIANCE, LLC vs. L3HARRIS CINCINNATI ELECTRONICS Page 4 of 6
CORPORATION, F/K/A L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CINCINNATI ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
AND D/B/A SYSTEMS COMPANY OF L3 TECHNOLOGIES ET AL
Motion No. 003
4 of 6
[* 4]
INDEX NO. 653704/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2025
objectives, and give [plaintiff]’s competitors an unearned business advantage in
future business endeavors.
Further, due to the small community of suppliers and launch vehicle
manufacturers in aerospace industry, the public exposure of the Parties’
competitively and commercially-sensitive arrangements, including the hardware
development and manufacturing processes and related pricing and financial
information, would threaten the Parties’ ability to negotiate with other companies
in the future.” (Id. ¶¶ 12-13.)
The court finds that plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to seal exhibits one
through five to the complaint in the entirety, as disclosure of such information would
threaten plaintiff’s competitive advantage. (See Mosallem, 76 AD3d at 350.)
Additionally, although as discussed supra the parties’ agreement to keep the contracts
confidential (NYSCEF 50, Englund aff ¶¶ 8, 11) does not constitute good cause to seal,
such agreement supports the argument for sealing. The branch of motion seeking
sealing is granted.
Redacting
In the default notice, plaintiff seeks to redact a chart detailing the delivery
schedule, which includes name of product, delivery date, and price. In the response
thereto and default notice, plaintiff seeks to redact financial amounts. Plaintiff has
demonstrated good cause to redact these documents as proposed. Disclosure of the
sensitive deliverable and pricing information would threated plaintiff’s competitive
advantage.3 The branch of motion seeking redactions is granted.
Accordingly, it is
3Plaintiff is reminded that confidential chambers copies shall include proposed
redactions highlighted yellow. (See Part 48 Procedures ¶ 10 [C][i].) The confidential
chambers copies field with this motion (NYSCEF 59, 61, 63) include no highlights.
653704/2024 UNITED LAUNCH ALLIANCE, LLC vs. L3HARRIS CINCINNATI ELECTRONICS Page 5 of 6
CORPORATION, F/K/A L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CINCINNATI ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
AND D/B/A SYSTEMS COMPANY OF L3 TECHNOLOGIES ET AL
Motion No. 003
5 of 6
[* 5]
INDEX NO. 653704/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 71 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2025
ORDERED that the motion is granted, and the County Clerk is directed to seal
NYSCEF 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 59, 61, and 63; and it is further
ORDERED the County Clerk shall restrict access to the sealed documents with
access to be granted only to authorized court personnel and designees, the parties and
counsel of record in this action, and any representative of a party or of
counsel of record upon presentation to the County Clerk of written authorization from
counsel; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on the County Clerk in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse County Clerk
Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the “E-Filing” page on the
court’s website at the address www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh); and it is further
ORDERED that if any party seeks to redact identical information in future filings
that the court is permitting to be redacted here, that party shall submit a proposed
sealing order to the court (via SFC-Part48@nycourts.gov and NYSCEF) instead of filing
another seal motion; and it is further
ORDERED that this order does not authorize sealing or redacting for purposes of
trial or other court proceedings on the record, e.g., arguments on motions.
1/30/2025
DATE ANDREA MASLEY, J.S.C.
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
□
X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
□
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
653704/2024 UNITED LAUNCH ALLIANCE, LLC vs. L3HARRIS CINCINNATI ELECTRONICS Page 6 of 6
CORPORATION, F/K/A L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CINCINNATI ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
AND D/B/A SYSTEMS COMPANY OF L3 TECHNOLOGIES ET AL
Motion No. 003
6 of 6
[* 6]