Opinion
21 Civ. 07740 (JPC)(RWL)
09-06-2022
COVET & MANE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. INVISIBLE BEAD EXTENSIONS, LLC, Defendants.
LAURA-MICHELLE HORGAN BARTON LLP ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF COVET & MANE, LLC
LAURA-MICHELLE HORGAN
BARTON LLP
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF COVET & MANE, LLC
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL
HON. ROBERTW. LEHRBURGER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to Rule B of the Rules for Redactions and Filing Under Seal in Appendix A of the Individual Practices in Civil Cases of Robert W. Lehrburger, United States Magistrate Judge, as of September 28, 2021, Plaintiff Covet & Mane, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “C&M”) hereby moves to file a redacted copy of a letter to the Court regarding an extension of the date of September 2, 2022 for the end of fact discovery and the circumstances necessitating the extension (the “Letter”).
The reason Plaintiff seeks to file the Letter in redacted form is that Defendant Invisible Bead Extensions, LLC (“Defendant” or “IBE”) has designated the entirety of its document production on August 11, 2022, 8,358 pages of documents, Bates Nos. IBE0002637 - 10,995, as Attorneys' Eyes Only pursuant to the So-Ordered Confidentiality Agreement, filed on March 3, 2022, as ECF Doc. No. 48. Defendant has also designated portions of the deposition of a third-party witness, Cassadi Currier, and portions of the Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) deposition of IBE, and the depositions of IBE's principals, Tyler Turley and McKenzie Turley, as Attorneys' Eyes Only pursuant to the So-Ordered Confidentiality Agreement. Since the Letter summarizes certain documents and portions of testimony from these depositions, Plaintiff hereby requests to file a copy of the Letter with these summaries redacted. Although Plaintiff does not agree with these designations, in an abundance of caution, it seeks to file a redacted version of the Letter. However, we hereby request that the Court allow Plaintiff to file a redacted version of the Letter to permit Defendant to file a letter motion requesting that the material remain under seal and address the reasons for its position pursuant to Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) and Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016).
An unredacted copy of the has been sent to Chambers by email and served upon Defendant's counsel. A redacted copy of the Letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit 1 .
SO ORDERED: