Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 24, 2024

Ultra Records, LLC v. Ultra International Music Publishing, LLC

Judge
Subramanian
Docket
1:22-cv-09667
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In Ultra Records v. Ultra International Music Publishing, Judge Subramanian ordered closure of a docket concerning a request to redact confidential materials.

Who this affects

Ultra International Music Publishing, LLC, Ultra Records, LLC, and public access to the identified declaration and exhibits.

What happened

Ultra Records, LLC v. Ultra International Music Publishing, LLC concerned the defendant’s request to redact parts of a declaration and exhibits filed in support of its reply concerning a motion to exclude Jeff Rougvie. The request identified confidential business, financial, artist-payment, and agreement information involving the parties and a nonparty.

Ultra International Music Publishing said disclosure could harm its interests and acknowledged a general presumption favoring public access to court documents. The letter also stated that some materials contained confidential information belonging to Ultra Records.

The order states “SO ORDERED” and directs the Clerk to close Docket 116. The excerpt does not expressly state whether the redaction request was granted or denied. Judge Arun Subramanian signed the order on June 24, 2024.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Ultra Records, LLC v. Ultra International Music Publishing, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09667
Judge
Subramanian
Date
June 24, 2024

Background

Ultra International Music Publishing, LLC asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for permission to file under seal or redact a declaration by Patrick Moxey and accompanying exhibits. The materials were submitted in support of the defendant’s reply concerning its motion to exclude Jeff Rougvie.

The request described the proposed redactions as covering confidential business and financial information, including advance payments to artists, artist names, profits and losses relevant to Ultra Records, LLC’s damages claim, terms of a confidential 2012 agreement between the parties, terms of a confidential settlement agreement with a nonparty, and confidential information and financial records of Ultra Records. The defendant argued that these interests justified keeping the information nonpublic despite the general presumption favoring public access to judicial documents.

Order

The opinion text ends with the court’s statement, “SO ORDERED,” followed by a direction that the Clerk of Court close Docket 116. It does not expressly say that the request to redact or seal the materials was granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part. The order was signed by Judge Arun Subramanian and dated June 24, 2024.

Effect

Based on the excerpt, the order closed the identified docket concerning the filing request. The text does not provide enough information to state the precise public-access status of each declaration or exhibit or to identify any separate ruling on the motion to exclude.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.