Case 1:23-cv-08926-SHS Document 60 Filed 11/20/23 Page 1 of 3
`
`-HUSCH BLACKWELL
`
`Dustin L. Taylor
`Partner
`
`1801 Wewatta Street, Suite 1000
`Denver, CO 80202
`Direct: 303.749.7247
`Fax: 303 .749 .7272
`Dustin.Taylor@huschblackwell.com
`
`November 1, 2023
`
`Hon . Sidney H. Stein, U.S.D.J.
`United States District Court
`Southern District of New York
`Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
`500 Pearl Street
`New York, New York 10007-1312
`
`Re:
`
`Atari Interactive, Inc. v. Printify, Inc. et al., No. 23-cv-08926 (SHS)
`
`DEFENDANT PRINTIFY, INC.'S LETTER MOTION TO SEAL
`
`Dear Judge Stein:
`
`Pursuant to this Court' s Stand ing Order 19-misc-5 83 and Your Honor' s Individual Practice
`5.B, I respectfully submit this letter motion to seal in support of Defendant
`ri
`·
`ency Motion to-
`("Printify") request to seal certain documents submitte
`in
`Modi
`t
`Cause regar mg
`reliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining
`Order ("Motion to Modify")._
`
`--------
`The documents submitted in support of Printify ' s Motion to Modify contain highly JJ/J.:~/~
`confidential and sensitive financial information regarding Printify's financial net worth and
`· ~
`operations. Due to the early stage of the case, and emergency nature of the Motion to Modify, the / J 1 a
`parties have yet to stipulate and agree to a Protective Order for this matter.
`~
`
`I) it
`
`As Your Honor knows, Printify was forced to fi le the Motion to Modify to unfreeze a ~
`majority of its liquid assets that Printify needed to operate its company, pay vendors, and pay
`employees their earned salaries. To convey to the Court the emergent nature of the requested relief, ~~
`the Motion to Modify included detailed information concerning not only Printify ' s operations but} /pi
`-
`the specific monetary amounts at issue. The Motion to Modify also included detailed information VJ
`·~ '{J).
`
`that highlighted the harm the asset freeze had caused to Printify, again providing detailed financial
`numbers and sources. Printify considers this information to be highly confidential and shared it
`with the Court solely given the extreme and emergent circumstances.
`
`Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-08926-SHS Document 60 Filed 11/20/23 Page 2 of 3
`
`+IUSCH BLACKWELL
`
`Hon. Sidney H. Stein, U.S.D.J.
`November 1, 2023
`Page 2
`
`Printify originally filed the entirety of the Motion to Modify and supporting exhibits
`under seal because the case was under seal when Printify filed these documents. In making this
`revised request, Printify seeks to seal on the confidential financial information and detailed
`information about Printify's operations. The request to seal applies to the following documents
`and information:
`
`• The October 26, 2023, Memorandum in Support of Defendant Printify Inc.' s
`Emergency Motion to Modify the October 11 Order to show Cause for Preliminary
`Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order;
`
`• The October 26, 2023, Declaration of[Anastasika Oleinika] 1 in Support of Defendant
`Printify, Inc. 's Emergency Motion to Modify the October 11 Order to show Cause for
`Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order;
`
`• The October 26, 2023, Declaration of Andris Dimants in Support of Defendant
`Printify, Inc.' s Emergency Motion to Modify the October 11 Order to show Cause for
`Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order; and
`
`• The October 26, 2023, Declaration of Artis Grizans in Support of Defendant Printify,
`Inc.' s Emergency Motion to Modify the October 11 Order to show Cause for
`Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order.
`
`Printify does not request to seek any portion of its Motion to Strike Portions of the
`Declaration of Katie Kavanaugh. Although Plaintiff stated at the October 27 hearing that it desired
`to redact portions of this declaration, Plaintiff subsequently confirmed to the undersigned that it
`would no longer seek to redact any portion of this document.
`
`The Second Circuit applies a three-step test to determine whether a document may be filed
`under seal. First, "a court must ... conclude that the documents at issue are indeed 'judicial
`documents.' ... In order to be designated a judicial document, 'the item filed must be relevant to
`the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process."' Lugosch v. Pyramid
`Co. of Onondaga, 435 F,3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006). The documents enumerated above support
`the Motion to Modify and satisfy this requirement.
`
`Second, assuming the information to be sealed has the "common law presumption of access
`attach[ ed], [the Court] must determine the weight of that presumption." Id. "[T]he weight to be
`given the presumption of access must be governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise
`of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the
`
`1 Although the caption of this declaration incorrectly states it is the Declaration of Andris Dimants,
`the title correctly identifies it as a declaration made by Anastasija Oleinka.
`
`Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-08926-SHS Document 60 Filed 11/20/23 Page 3 of 3
`
`-HUSCH BLACKWE LL
`
`Hon. Sidney H. Stein, U.S.D.J.
`November 1, 2023
`Page 3
`
`federal courts. Generally, the information will fall somewhere on a continuum from matters that
`directly affect an adjudication to matters that come within a court's purview solely to insure their
`irrelevance." Id. at 119 (citing US. v. Amodeo, 71 F,3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). Here, the
`material at issue is directly implicated in the Court's judicial function because the portions of the
`Motion to Modify and support declarations relate to the financial position and competitive strategy
`of Printify which was submitted to provide the Court with context concerning Printify's request to
`modify the TRO to lift the asset freeze. Moreover, the information to be sealed does not need to
`be put into the public record for the public to have an adequate understanding of the issues in
`dispute.
`
`Third, "after determining the weight of the presumption of access, the court must 'balance
`competing considerations against it.' Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to ...
`'the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure." ' Id. at 119-20 ( citations omitted). This Court
`frequently allows documents to be filed under seal to prevent the disclosure of confidential and
`proprietary business information. See, e.g. , GoSMiLE, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.MD. P.C.,
`769 F, SuQp, 2d 630, 649-50 (S.D .N.Y. 2011) (sealing exhibits that contain "highly proprietary
`material concerning the defendants' marketing strategies, product development, costs and
`budgeting"). Moreover, the information to be sealed and/or redacted represents only a portion of
`the total information to be presented to the Court, leaving the majority of the facts and nearly all
`of the argument unredacted so that the public can understand this action and the Court's activities
`with regard to it. Thus, sealing the information as requested will properly balance the competing
`considerations of the right of the public to examine the proceedings of this Court and the right of
`the parties to ensure that allegedly confidential business information remains confidential.
`
`Finally, Standing Order 19-misc-583 and Your Honor' s Individual Practice 5.B permit the
`filing of the documents and information described above pursuant to the procedures set forth therein.
`
`For at least these reasons, Printify respectfully requests the Court grant this letter motion and
`permit the above-listed items to be filed under seal.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
`
`Dustin L. Taylor
`
`Counsel for Defendant Printify, Inc.
`
`Husch Blackwell LLP
`
`cc: All counsel of record (Service via ECF)
`
`