UGX Brands, LLC v. The City of Norfolk

Background

UGX Brands, LLC and Trap Karaoke LLC brought claims against The City of Norfolk doing business as Seven Venues, Global Music Touring, LLC, Antonio Dowe, and Terrence Thornton, also known as Pusha T. The claims allege trademark infringement under Sections 1114 and 1125(a) of the Lanham Act and trademark infringement and unfair competition under New York common law. The opinion addresses only the defendants’ motion to seal Exhibit D filed with their motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Exhibit D is an agreement between We Cousinz, LLC and DJ Envy LLC for Raashaun Casey, also known as DJ Envy. The defendants sought to file the entire agreement under seal, citing competitively sensitive business information, performance fees and other deal terms, the privacy interests of nonparties, and a confidentiality provision in the agreement. The plaintiffs consented to the request.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the framework requiring it to consider whether the material is a “judicial document,” how strong the public-access presumption is, and whether countervailing interests outweigh that presumption. The court held that materials submitted in support of a motion to dismiss are judicial documents because they are relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. It also found that the presumption of public access was strong because the exhibit was filed in connection with a dispositive motion.

The defendants relied on concerns about confidential business information and the privacy interests of nonparties. The court noted, however, that the cited decisions generally allowed redaction of particular information rather than sealing entire documents. The court also observed that most of the agreement did not appear to contain the type of competitively sensitive or proprietary information that ordinarily requires sealing. The defendants had identified performance fees and other deal terms as confidential, but they proposed no redactions. Because Exhibit D was relevant at least to personal-jurisdiction issues raised in the pending motion to dismiss, the court found that sealing the entire agreement was not narrowly tailored.

Disposition

Judge Dale E. Ho denied the defendants’ motion to seal and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate docket entry 44. The court said it would consider specific, narrowly tailored redactions if the defendants supported them with authority concerning similar information. The court temporarily maintained Exhibit D under seal while the defendants had an opportunity to propose such redactions and while the court considered any resulting requests. The opinion did not decide the underlying trademark claims or the pending motion to dismiss.