Christopher A. Barbarisi 

K&L GATES LLP 

One Newark Center, Tenth Floor 

Newark, NJ 07102 

(973) 848-4000 

Jeffrey B. Maletta (pro hac vice admission pending) 

K&L GATES LLP 

1601 K Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006-1600 

(202) 778-9000 

Attorneys for Proposed Interveners 

Wellington Management Group LLP 

and Wellington Management Company LLP 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

JENNIFER L. KASILAG, LOUIS MELLINGER, 

JUDITH M. MENENDEZ, JACQUELINE M.

ROBINSON, and LINDA A. RUSSELL, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

HARTFORD INVESTMENT FINANCIAL 

SERVICES, LLC, 

Defendants. 

Civil Action No. l l-cv-1083 (RMB)(KMW)

and 

Civil Action No. 14-cv-1611 (RMB)(KMW) 

JENNIFER L. KASILAG, LOUIS MELLINGER, 

JUDITH M. MENENDEZ, JACQUELINE M. 

ROBINSON, LINDA A. RUSSELL, DENNIS 

RUSSELL, AND DARIN DUDEK, ON BEHALF OF 

AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE HARTFORD 

HEALTHCARE FUND, THE HARTFORD 

CONSERVATIVE ALLOCATION FUND, THE 

HARTFORD GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES FUND, 

THE HARTFORD INFLATION PLUS FUND, THE 

HARTFORD BALANCED FUND, THE 

HARTFORD CAPITAL APPRECIATION FUND, 

THE HARTFORD FLOATING RATE FUND, AND 

THE HARTFORD SMALL COMPANY FUND 

Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

HARTFORD FUNDS MANAGEMENT 

COMPANY, LLC, 

Defendant. 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT 

OF MOTION OF WELLINGTON 

MANAGEMENT GROUP LLP AND 

WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT 

COMPANY LLP TO INTERVENE AND 

SEAL NON-PUBLIC FINANCIAL 

INFORMATION 

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

FILED ELECTRONICALLY

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 149-1 Filed 06/15/15 Page 1 of 15 PageID: 7426
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1

ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................3

A. INTERVENTION IS APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW WELLINGTON TO 

PROTECT ITS CONFIDENTIAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION ...................................3

B. THE WELLINGTON DOCUMENTS CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL 

INFORMATION ENTITLED TO PROTECTION AND SHOULD BE SEALED ............5

(a) The Information At Issue Is Non-Public, Confidential Data Reflecting 

Wellington’s Revenues And Costs. .........................................................................7

(b) Wellington Has A Legitimate Interest In Sealing Its Financial Information 

To Prevent Harm To Its Competitive Standing And There Is No 

Countervailing Public Interest. ................................................................................7

(c) Failure To Seal The Confidential Financial Information Threatens Serious 

Competitive Injury To Wellington...........................................................................9

(d) No Less Restrictive Alternative To Sealing Is Available. .....................................10

CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................11

 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 149-1 Filed 06/15/15 Page 2 of 15 PageID: 7427
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Page(s) 

CASES

Bracco Diagnostics, Inc. v. Amersham Health, Inc., 

No. 03-6025, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51828 (D.N.J. July 18, 2007).................................6, 8, 9 

Erwin v. Waller Capital Partners, LLC, 

No. 10-3283, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114169 (D.N.J. Aug. 14, 2012) .................................8, 9 

Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 

56 F.3d 476 (3d Cir. 1995).....................................................................................................5, 7 

Goldenberg v. Indel, Inc., 

No. 09-5202, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 479 (D.N.J. Jan. 3, 2012) ...................................5, 6, 7, 9 

Grant Heilman Photography, Inc. v. Pearson Educ., Inc., 

No. 11-4649, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59994 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2012) .................................8, 9 

Houston v. Houston, 

No. 08-5530, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59028 (D.N.J. June 14, 2010) ......................................11 

Kasilag v. Hartford Inv. Servs., LLC, 

No. 11-01083 (D.N.J. Nov. 14, 2011) .......................................................................................1 

Mosaid Techs. v. LSI Corp., 

878 F. Supp. 2d 503 (D. Del. 2012) .........................................................................................11 

Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 

435 U.S. 589 (1978) ...............................................................................................................6, 8 

Overton v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, 

No. 13-05535, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48945 ...........................................................................6 

Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 

23 F.3d 772 (3d Cir. 1994).............................................................................................4, 5, 7, 8 

Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 

733 F.2d 1059 (3d Cir. 1984).....................................................................................................5 

Republic of Philippines v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 

949 F.2d 653 (3d Cir. 1991).......................................................................................................6 

United States v. Dentsply International, Inc. .....................................................................................

187 F.R.D. 152 (D. Del. 1999) ..............................................................................................4, 5 

Vista India, Inc. v. Raaga, LLC, 

No. 07-1262, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24454 (D.N.J. Mar. 27, 2008)........................................6 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 149-1 Filed 06/15/15 Page 3 of 15 PageID: 7428
iii 

Wolpert v. Abbott Labs., 

No. 08-4849, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33173 (D.N.J. Mar. 25, 2011)......................................10 

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Indus. Co., 

529 F. Supp. 866 (E.D. Pa. 1981) ..........................................................................................6, 8

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Civ. R. 5.3(c)(2) ...............................................................................................................................6 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) .....................................................................................1, 4, 5 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) .............................................................................................2 

Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ........................................................................3 

L. Civ. R. 5.3 ................................................................................................................................6, 7 

Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) ....................................................................................................................1 

Local Rule 5.3(c)(2) .........................................................................................................................7 

Rule 56.1 ..........................................................................................................................................1 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 149-1 Filed 06/15/15 Page 4 of 15 PageID: 7429
Proposed Interveners Wellington Management Group LLP and Wellington Management 

Company LLP (collectively “Wellington”) respectfully submit this Memorandum of Law in 

Support of their: A) Motion to Intervene, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b); and 

B) Motion to Seal Non-Public Financial Information, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) and the 

Stipulation and Order Governing the Protection and Exchange of Confidential Material (the 

“Confidentiality Order”), entered in this matter (ECF No. 120).1 In addition to this Memorandum 

of Law, Wellington submits the Declarations of Jeffrey Maletta dated June 15, 2015 (“Maletta 

Decl.”) and Edward Steinborn dated June 15, 2015 (“Steinborn Decl.”). 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

Wellington seeks intervention for the limited purpose of protecting certain confidential, 

non-public financial information contained in three exhibits filed by Plaintiff in connection with 

their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Intervention is generally granted to permit outside 

parties to protect confidential information. Counsel for both Plaintiffs and Defendants have 

stated that they do not object to Wellington’s participation for this purpose. 

Wellington asks this Court (1) to seal three documents (“Wellington Documents”) 

containing confidential, non-public information concerning Wellington that have been filed by 

Plaintiffs as Exhibits 21-23 to the Declaration of Arnold Lakind filed in connection with their 

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and (2) to direct the parties to redact that information 

derived from the Wellington Documents from the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (the “Memorandum of Law”) and in Plaintiffs’ Statement 

of Material Facts Not In Dispute In Support of Their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (the 

 

1

 All references to docket numbers take the form “ECF No. ___” and, unless otherwise noted, 

refer to the docket in Kasilag v. Hartford Inv. Servs., LLC, No. 11-01083 (D.N.J. Nov. 14, 2011). 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 149-1 Filed 06/15/15 Page 5 of 15 PageID: 7430
2 

“Rule 56.1 Statement”). As set forth in detail in the Declaration of Wellington’s CFO, Edward 

Steinborn, and described below at pages 8-10 the Wellington Documents contain confidential 

information relating to Wellington’s revenues and costs, which, if made public, would prejudice 

Wellington’s competitive standing in its business. Steinborn Decl. ¶ 11-14. There are no 

compelling factors that favor disclosure, and there would be no prejudice to any party to this 

litigation from protecting Wellington’s information. Sealing the Wellington Documents and 

redacting references to information derived from them from public filings is the least restrictive 

means possible to protect Wellington’s interests. 

Wellington acts as a sub-adviser to certain registered investment companies (“Hartford 

Funds”) managed by Defendants Hartford Investment Financial Services Company, LLC 

(“HIFSCO”) and Hartford Funds Management Company, LLC (“HFMC” and, together with 

HIFSCO, “Hartford”). The issues in this case relate to fees paid to the Hartford by the Harford 

Funds, not the fees received by Wellington. 

Wellington is not a party to this action. Wellington and other third parties are 

nonetheless protected by the terms of the Confidentiality Order entered by the Court, pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and with the Parties’ consent, to facilitate discovery and to 

protect the Parties’ sensitive and proprietary information produced in this case. See

Confidentiality Order ¶¶ 2-4. The Confidentiality Order permitted parties and third persons 

producing documents to designate documents and information “Confidential” and “Attorneys 

Eyes Only.” Id. 

The three Wellington Documents in question were provided on a confidential basis to the 

Board of Directors of the Hartford Mutual Funds at the Board’s request. They were provided 

with the express request that they and the information contained in them be maintained in 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 149-1 Filed 06/15/15 Page 6 of 15 PageID: 7431
3 

confidence and provided only to the Directors and their separate independent counsel. Steinborn 

Decl. ¶ 8. The documents have not been provided to the Hartford Defendants. Id. 

Wellington has not produced the Wellington Documents in discovery in this case. 

Plaintiffs obtained copies of these Wellington Documents in discovery from the Hartford 

Directors. Maletta Decl. ¶ 4. Wellington understands that when the documents were produced 

by the Directors they were designated “Attorney’s Eyes Only” under the protective order. 

Maletta Decl. ¶ 5 and Exhibit A thereto. 

This motion seeks to seal only the three Wellington Documents containing competitively 

sensitive, non-public financial information and to redact references in the public filings that 

disclose information derived from the Wellington Documents. 

ARGUMENT 

A. INTERVENTION IS APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW WELLINGTON TO 

PROTECT ITS CONFIDENTIAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION 

Courts have regularly allowed persons who are not parties to a case to intervene to 

protect confidential information that the parties have obtained through discovery. Intervention is 

appropriate under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides: 

(b) Permissive Intervention 

(1) In General. On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who: 

(A) is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or 

(B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or 

fact. 

Here Wellington has an interest in protecting its confidential business information. 

Although the issues raised by Wellington’s claim of confidentiality are similar to claims of 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 149-1 Filed 06/15/15 Page 7 of 15 PageID: 7432
4 

confidentiality that may be raised by the Defendants, Wellington’s interests will not be protected 

by either Plaintiffs or Defendants in this case. 

Wellington’s claim of confidentiality meets the Rule 24(b) standard for “a common 

question of law or fact” with the main action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). The Third Circuit employs 

a relaxed Rule 24(b) standard when a party seeks to intervene for the purpose of modifying 

protective or confidentiality orders rather than to participate in the litigation. See Pansy v. 

Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 778 (3d Cir. 1994). The Third Circuit in Pansy adopted 

the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit: 

[S]pecificity, e.g., that the [intervenors’] claim involve ... the same 

legal theory [that was raised in the main action], is not required 

when intervenors are not becoming parties to the litigation. There 

is no reason to require such a strong nexus of fact or law when a 

party seeks to intervene only for the purpose of modifying a 

protective order. 

Id. (quoting Beckman Indus., Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 474 (9th Cir. 1992), 

cert. den’d, 506 U.S. 868, 113 S. Ct. 197, 121 L.Ed.2d 140 (1992). Using this reasoning, the 

court in Pansy found that a newspaper intervening to challenge the validity of an Order of 

Confidentiality entered in the main action met the “common question” requirement of Rule 

24(b). In doing so, the Third Circuit aligned itself with numerous other courts “that have held 

that the procedural device of permissive intervention is appropriately used to enable a litigant 

who was not an original party to an action to challenge protective or confidentiality orders 

entered in that action.” Id.

Courts in the Third Circuit have expanded this relaxed Rule 24(b) requirement to 

encompass interveners attempting to protect confidential information. For example, in United 

States v. Dentsply International, Inc., the District Court for the District of Delaware allowed a 

dental supply company to intervene solely to advocate for a protective order guarding 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 149-1 Filed 06/15/15 Page 8 of 15 PageID: 7433
5 

confidential business information it had produced in response to a Civil Investigation Demand 

during an antitrust investigation. See 187 F.R.D. 152, 157 (D. Del. 1999). In that case, the 

Department of Justice requested documents from several companies later acquired by the 

intervener, Henry Schein, Inc. See id. The companies had produced financial forecasts, pricing 

information, and information concerning distribution agreements with vendors. See id. Citing 

the Third Circuit’s relaxed 24(b) standard from Pansy, the court allowed Schein to intervene: 

“Understandably motivated by a desire to protect its confidential information, Schein seeks to 

share its views on the provisions of any protective order governing this litigation.” Id. 

 The issue in the current case contains analogous facts. Wellington seeks to intervene in 

this case for the sole purpose of protecting its confidential financial information. Under the Rule 

24(b) standard adopted by the Third Circuit, Wellington should be permitted to intervene for this 

purpose. 

Wellington’s Intervention will not in any way delay these proceedings. The issue will be 

decided together efficiently in connection with proceedings relating to the sealing of other 

materials. 

B. THE WELLINGTON DOCUMENTS CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL 

INFORMATION ENTITLED TO PROTECTION AND SHOULD BE 

SEALED 

Information may be sealed on a showing of “good cause.” Pansy v. Borough of 

Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir. 1994); see also Goldenberg v. Indel, Inc., No. 09-5202, 

2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 479, at *4 (D.N.J. Jan. 3, 2012). “Good cause” exists to seal information 

“when it is specifically demonstrated that disclosure will cause a clearly defined and serious 

injury.” Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995); see also Pansy, 23 

F.3d at 786; Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1071 (3d Cir. 1984). 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 149-1 Filed 06/15/15 Page 9 of 15 PageID: 7434
6 

Courts regularly protect confidential business information when there is a possible 

competitive impact. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) 

(“[C]ourts have refused to permit their files to serve as . . . sources of business information that 

might harm a litigant’s competitive standing[.]”) (citations omitted); see also Republic of 

Philippines v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 949 F.2d 653, 662 (3d Cir. 1991); Vista India, Inc. v. 

Raaga, LLC, No. 07-1262, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24454, at *10-11 (D.N.J. Mar. 27, 2008); 

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Indus. Co., 529 F. Supp. 866, 889-91 (E.D. Pa. 1981). 

On these grounds, numerous courts within the Third Circuit have found good cause to seal nonpublic financial information—including revenue and cost information—to protect a litigant’s 

competitive standing. See, e.g., Goldenberg, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 479, at *7-11 (sealing 

“financial spreadsheets showing calculations of payments made”); Bracco Diagnostics, Inc. v. 

Amersham Health, Inc., No. 03-6025, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51828, at *16-18 (D.N.J. July 18, 

2007) (sealing “cost and profit information”) (emphasis added); Zenith, 529 F. Supp. at 906-08. 

This Court’s Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(2) governs the process for sealing documents and 

sets out the factors to be weighed in determining whether the materials should be sealed. Those 

factors are (a) the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue; (b) the legitimate private or 

public interests which warrant the relief sought; (c) the clearly defined and serious injury that 

would result if the relief sought is not granted; and (d) why a less restrictive alternative to the 

relief sought is not available. L. Civ. R. 5.3(c)(2); see also Overton v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, 

No. 13-05535, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48945, at *2 (D.N.J. Apr. 9, 2014) (Arpert, M.J.) 

(granting motion to seal).2

 

2 The Third Circuit has provided a list of factors that “are neither mandatory nor exhaustive” 

relevant to the “good cause” analysis: 1) whether disclosure will violate any privacy interests; 

2) whether the information is being sought for a legitimate purpose or for an improper purpose; 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 149-1 Filed 06/15/15 Page 10 of 15 PageID: 7435
7 

Application of the Local Rule 5.3(c)(2) factors demonstrates that the Court should grant 

the Motion to Seal the Wellington Documents. 

(a) The Information At Issue Is Non-Public, Confidential Data Reflecting 

Wellington’s Revenues And Costs. 

The information Wellington seeks to protect is readily identifiable: it appears in the 

Wellington Documents which are Exhibits 21-23 to the Lakind Declaration filed in support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and references to that information in 

Defendants’ Memorandum of Law and Rule 56.1 Statement. This commercially sensitive 

financial information includes revenue and cost information for Wellington’s advisory business. 

Wellington is a private partnership. Steinborn Decl. ¶ 2. This information is not available 

publicly, and Wellington has consistently protected this information from disclosure. It has been 

provided directly to the Hartford Directors and not to Hartford. See Steinborn Decl. ¶ 9. It is 

also not disseminated within Wellington. The Wellington Documents themselves request that 

the information be treated confidentially, and the Documents were properly designated 

“Attorney’s Eyes Only” under the terms of the Confidentiality Order when produced. Maletta 

Decl. ¶ 5. 

(b) Wellington Has A Legitimate Interest In Sealing Its Financial Information 

To Prevent Harm To Its Competitive Standing And There Is No 

Countervailing Public Interest. 

Both public and private interests militate against public disclosure of confidential 

financial information that may injure a litigant’s competitive standing and economic viability. 

 

3) whether disclosure of the information will cause a party embarrassment; 4) whether 

confidentiality is being sought over information important to public health and safety; 5) whether 

the sharing of information among litigants will promote fairness and efficiency; 6) whether a 

party benefitting from the order of confidentiality is a public entity or official; and 7) whether the 

case involves issues important to the public. Glenmede, 56 F.3d at 483; see also Pansy, 23 F.3d 

at 787-91. In practice, courts tend to analyze these factors concurrently with those set out in 

Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(2). See, e.g., Goldenberg, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 479, at *4-12.

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 149-1 Filed 06/15/15 Page 11 of 15 PageID: 7436
8 

See, e.g., Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598; Bracco, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51828, at *16 (citing L. Civ. R. 

5.3(c)(2)(b)). 

District courts within the Third Circuit have repeatedly acknowledged litigants’ 

“legitimate private interest” in sealing confidential information concerning “revenue, expenses, 

profits [and] losses” because they “may suffer a competitive disadvantage if such information 

were disclosed to the public.” Erwin v. Waller Capital Partners, LLC, No. 10-3283, 2012 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 114169, at *5-6 (D.N.J. Aug. 14, 2012); see also, e.g., Pearson, 2012 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 59994, at *14-15 (D.N.J. Aug. 14, 2012) (sealing information due to party’s “strong 

interest in keeping its non-public financial information” confidential); Zenith, 529 F. Supp. at 

890-92. Bracco 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51828, at *16 (emphasis added) (citing L. Civ. R. 

5.3(c)(2)(b)). 

Wellington has a significant and legitimate private interest in maintaining the 

confidentiality of its financial information. The information in the Wellington Documents 

contains unique revenues and costs of Wellington’s advisory business, and revenues derived 

from Wellington’s relationship with all of the Hartford Funds it subadvises. Steinborn Decl. ¶ 

11. Disclosure of this non-public financial data will provide competitors and counterparties with 

otherwise unavailable sensitive financial information, and allow them to strategize accordingly, 

disadvantaging Wellington’s position in the marketplace. See Steinborn Decl. ¶ 11-12. 

While caselaw and Local Rules balance a party’s privacy interests against the public 

interest of disclosure, see Pansy, 23 F.3d at 787, here the public has no interest in the cost and 

revenue numbers of a private partnership. The public does not have any legitimate interest in 

Wellington’s internal financial information. Grant Heilman Photography, Inc. v. Pearson Educ., 

Inc., No. 11-4649, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59994, at *22-24 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2012) (granting 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 149-1 Filed 06/15/15 Page 12 of 15 PageID: 7437
9 

motion for protective order on grounds that public does not have any “‘right to know” a 

company’s private financial data); see also Erwin, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114169, at *5-6 

(sealing internal financial “information which a competitor might be curious about but not the 

general public”). 

(c) Failure To Seal The Confidential Financial Information Threatens Serious 

Competitive Injury To Wellington. 

“District Courts in the Third Circuit have . . . repeatedly found serious harm in disclosing 

financial information which would injure a party’s standing in the competitive marketplace.” 

Goldenberg, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 479, at *8-9. See Pearson, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59994, 

at *15 (emphasis added). 

Here, disclosure of Wellington’s confidential revenue and cost information would 

provide competitors with the ability to assess the extent to which Wellington’s profits derive 

from an important business segment, and would reveal the strengths and weaknesses of 

Wellington’s business model. See Steinborn Decl. ¶ 11. Competitors and counterparties 

including other firms with whom Wellington has a subadvisory relationship would be able to 

gauge Wellington from certain lines of business, and using other sources could develop 

competitive negotiating strategies to disadvantage Wellington. Steinborn Decl. ¶ 12. For 

example, Hartford’s non-public, internal costs information is of particular interest to competitors, 

who could use the data to pinpoint clients. See, e.g., Bracco, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51828, at 

*16-18; Goldenberg, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 479, at *7-11. This information would give 

competitors an advantage in competing against Wellington for new business and existing 

Wellington clients. It would also give persons negotiating contracts with Wellington an 

advantage, as they would gain insight into Wellington’s willingness to enter into differing 

arrangements. Steinborn Decl. ¶ 12. 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 149-1 Filed 06/15/15 Page 13 of 15 PageID: 7438
10 

In addition, this information is maintained confidentially within Wellington. 

Wellington’s ability, as a privately held firm, to keep its financial information confidential even 

within Wellington gives it a competitive advantage over its publicly traded competitors. 

Steinborn Decl. ¶ 13. That advantage extends to its expense and capital structure as well as its 

profitability. The ability to maintain the confidentiality of its financial information internally as 

well as externally is a foundation of Wellington’s culture and Wellington believes that this 

enhances Wellington’s ability to attract and retain employees. Id. To maintain this culture, 

Wellington maintains a single income statement – it neither tracks nor shares information about 

the profitability of accounts, products, clients, lines of business or geographic regions. Steinborn 

Decl. ¶ 14. Wellington believes that this is similarly important to the firm’s culture and longterm success in motivating partners and employees to focus on the firm’s goal of meeting the 

expectations of all of Wellington’s clients. The public release of the Wellington Documents 

would damage that key element of the firm’s culture and the advantages it provides. Steinborn 

Decl. ¶ 14. 

(d) No Less Restrictive Alternative To Sealing Is Available. 

Wellington seeks only to seal the three Wellington Documents and to redact the nonpublic information derived from those Documents from the Memorandum of Law and Rule 56.1 

Statement. Redacting portions of the Exhibits from the documents is impractical as they are 

brief and consist principally of the financial information itself and an explanation of 

methodology. There is no “less restrictive alternative” than sealing the Wellington Documents. 

On the other hand, redacting the information derived from the Wellington Documents from the 

Memorandum and other papers is feasible and appropriate as it is mentioned in only a small 

portion of these papers. See, e.g., Wolpert v. Abbott Labs., No. 08-4849, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

33173, at *5-6 (D.N.J. Mar. 25, 2011) (finding redaction of financial information preferable to 

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 149-1 Filed 06/15/15 Page 14 of 15 PageID: 7439
11 

wholesale sealing); Houston v. Houston, No. 08-5530, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59028, at *3-4 

(D.N.J. June 14, 2010); Mosaid Techs. v. LSI Corp., 878 F. Supp. 2d 503, 505, 513 (D. Del. 

2012). Sealing and redaction of the information described above is the only practicable means of 

preventing public disclosure and unwarranted competitor access to the data. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Proposed Interveners respectfully request that the Court grant 

their Motion to Intervene and Seal Non-Public Financial Information and enter the proposed 

Order submitted herewith. 

Dated: June 15, 2015 

K&L GATES LLP 

By: /s/ Christopher A. Barbarisi 

Christopher A. Barbarisi 

One Newark Center, Tenth Floor 

Newark, NJ 07102 

(973) 848-4000 

 K&L GATES LLP

Jeffrey B. Maletta 

1601 K Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006-1600 

(202) 778-9000 

Attorneys for Proposed Interveners 

Wellington Management Group LLP and 

Wellington Management Company LLP

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 149-1 Filed 06/15/15 Page 15 of 15 PageID: 7440