The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45 were read on this motion to/for SEAL. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION In motion sequence number 001, plaintiff CoreSite 32 Avenue of the Americas, LLC (CoreSite) moves to seal the complaint and all of its exhibits filed as NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 12 at 2.) Background CoreSite provides high performance data center and interconnection solutions to companies, network operators and cloud providers. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 9 at 3.) CoreSite conducts this business in data centers, highly specialized and secure buildings that house networking, storage, and technology infrastructure. (Id. at 4.) Certain data centers, located where many communications networks converge, function as “hubs” where customers can connect to multiple networks. (Id.) One such hub is located on the 24th floor at 32 Avenue of the Americas, a building allegedly owned by defendant 32 Sixth Avenue Company LLC (Landlord). CoreSite allegedly leases the 24th floor from Landlord, and the lease establishes the rates CoreSite is charged for that occupancy and use of telecommunications equipment in the hub. (Id. at
4, 5, 6.) As to CoreSite’s usage of telecommunications equipment in the hub, a separate agreement entered into by CoreSite and Landlord (2008 Letter Agreement) also governs. (Id. at 6.) In August 2013, Landlord leased and transferred the business of operating the hub to defendant Telx-New York 6th Ave. LLC (Telx) pursuant to an agreement (Hub Agreement). (Id. at 7.) In the Hub Agreement, Telx allegedly assumed Landlord’s obligations to CoreSite, including the rates to be charged for CoreSite’s usage of the hub. (Id.) To discuss these rates, CoreSite allegedly exchanged emails with Telx’s general counsel in November 2013 (November 2013 Emails). (Id. at 7.) On October 16, 2018, Telx, along with Digital Realty Trust, Inc. (DRT), a company that acquired Telx’s parent corporation, quoted CoreSite a rate for using the hub that represented a 350 percent increase over the rate allegedly memorialized in the lease. (Id. at 9.) In an attempt to resolve this dispute, CoreSite provided DRT with a redacted copy of the lease, and DRT provided CoreSite with a redacted copy of the Hub Agreement. (Id. at 12.) Ultimately, these parties did not resolve their dispute, and CoreSite commenced this action against Landlord and Telx for breach of contract, indemnification from Landlord, and a judgment declaring the obligations of Landlord and Telx. (Id. at 13.) CoreSite now moves to redact the lease (NYSCEF Doc. No. 3), the 2008 Letter Agreement (NYSCEF Doc. No. 4), the Hub Agreement (NYSCEF Doc. No. 5), the November 2013 Emails (NYSCEF Doc. No. 6) and the complaint (NYSCEF Doc. No. 2). CoreSite argues that these filings should be redacted because businesses competitively secure pricing for data center space and connections which affect the prices that they can offer to their customers. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 9 at 17.) Specifically, CoreSite asserts that the lease contains confidential information concerning CoreSite’s rent and terms of occupancy (Id. at 19) while the Hub Agreement contains confidential information about the manner in which Telx may operate the hub. (Id. at 20.) Telx does not oppose this motion, and argues that the Hub Agreement, specifically, should be redacted because it contains sensitive information concerning finances, customers and accounts, along with descriptions of the building and detailed information regarding the location and nature of certain telecommunications equipment. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 35 at
