Opinion

Cc: MEMO ENDORSE

HON VALERIEFIGUEREDO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: January 26, 2026

January 23, 2026 . .

Vu ECF The motion to seal is GRANTED. The Clerk of

the Court is respectfully directed to maintain the

The Honorable Valerie Figueredo sealing at ECF Nos. 280-1 and 280-3 and to close

United States Magistrate Judge the motion at ECF No. 282.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse

500 Pearl Street

New York, NY 10007

Re: International Code Council, Inc. v. UpCodes, Inc., et al. Consolidated Case Nos.

1:20-cv-04316, 1:17-cv-06261, 1:22-cv-10815

Dear Judge Figueredo:

Pursuant to the Court’s January 16, 2026 Order, Dkt. 278, Local Civil Rule 37.2, and Section II.C.2

of the Court’s Individual Practices, Plaintiff International Code Council (“ICC”) submits this letter

motion to maintain the sealed treatment of its Confidential Information referenced or quoted in

Defendants (collectively, “UpCodes”) January 15, 2026 letter motion (Dkt. Nos. 274, 274-1, 274-

2, 274-3, & 274-4).

Specifically, UpCodes’ letter motion included two exhibits, Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 3 (Dkt. Nos.

274-1 & 274-3), that include information that ICC has designated as “Highly Confidential —

Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” ICC requests that Exhibits 1 and 3, containing a summary and excerpts

of testimony from ICC executives Mr. Mark Johnson and Ms. Gosia Furman, be maintained under

seal as originally proposed by UpCodes in its January 15, 2026 Letter (Dkt. 272) and resubmitted

with this motion (“ICC’s Proposed Redactions and Sealings”). ICC’s Proposed Redactions and

Sealings include discussions of sensitive financial information, customer information, and

business performance metrics that are highly confidential.

Sealed treatment of ICC’s Proposed Redactions and Sealings is appropriate in light of Lugosch v.

Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). Although “[t]he common law

right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted in our nation’s history,” this right is

not absolute and courts “must balance competing considerations against” the presumption of

public access. /d. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). ‘“[C]ourts in this District

routinely seal documents to prevent the disclosure of a party’s confidential or competitively

sensitive business information.” Regeneron Pharms., Inc. v. Novartis Pharma AG, 2021 WL

243943, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2021) (collecting cases). “[C]ourts may deny access to records

that contain “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.”

CT Espresso LLC v. Lavazza Premium Coffees Corp., 2022 WL 443644, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14,

2022) (internal quotations) (collecting cases).

ICC’s Proposed Redactions and Sealings are “generally limited to specific business information

and strategies, which, if revealed, ‘may provide valuable insights into a company’s current

business practices that a competitor would seek to exploit.’” Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Sunny

Merch. Corp., 97 F. Supp. 3d 485, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Encycl. Brown Prods., Ltd. v.

Home Box Office, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 2d 606, 614 (S.D.N.Y.1998)). “[C]ourts in this Circuit

routinely permit parties to redact sensitive financial information akin to the material at issue here.”

Graczyk v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc., No. 18 CIV. 6465 (PGG), 2020 WL 1435031, at *9 (S.D.N.Y.

Mar. 24, 2020); see also City of Providence v. BATS Glob. Markets, Inc., No. 14-CV-2811 (JMF),

2022 WL 539438, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2022) (“The filings contain confidential customer

information of a type that is ‘commonly sealed.’”). “Courts applying the Second Circuit’s Lugosch

standard have also recognized the sensitivity of confidential business strategies and practices, and

have permitted the sealing of such information.” PharmacyChecker.com LLC v. Nat’l Ass’n of

Boards of Pharmacy, 2022 WL 4956050, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2022). These redactions and

sealing are “narrowly tailored to cover only the sensitive information that could lead to competitive

disadvantage if disclosed.” W.J. Deutsch & Sons Ltd. v. Diego Zamora, S.A., 2022 WL 890184,

at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2022).

ICC’s Proposed Redactions and Sealings have been applied judiciously and are narrowly tailored

to shield only “the confidentiality of proprietary business information.” Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v.

Telegram Grp. Inc., 2020 WL 3264264, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2020). Accordingly, ICC

respectfully requests that the Court grant ICC’s request to maintain the limited, proposed

redactions and sealing.

Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Jane W. Wise

DLA PIPER LLP (US)

Staci J. Trager J. Kevin Fee

200 Avenue of the Stars Jane W. Wise

Suite 400 North Tower Olivia Houston

Los Angeles, CA 90067 500 Eighth St NW

staci.trager@us.dlapiper.com Washington, DC 20004

(202) 799-4000

Jordan Chisek kevin.fee@dlapiper.com

555 Mission Street jane.wise@dlapiper.com

Suite 2400 olivia.houston@us.dlapiper.com

San Francisco, CA 94105

jordan.chisek@us.dlapiper.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff American Society

for Testing and Materials d/b/a ASTM

International