Albert v. DistroKid LLC
- Katherine Failla
- 1:25-cv-01705
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Albert v. DistroKid, Judge Failla granted Amazon’s request to seal three exhibits containing confidential commercial information.
Amazon.com Services LLC, the parties, and public viewers of the court docket. The three exhibits at docket entry 41 are accessible only to the court and the parties.
What happened
In Albert v. DistroKid LLC, Amazon asked the court to seal three exhibits supporting its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Amazon said the exhibits contained confidential pricing, payment, and financial information.
Amazon also asked to file redacted versions publicly. It argued that disclosure could harm its ability to negotiate with third parties and give competitors an advantage.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. She directed the clerk to keep docket entry 41 under seal, accessible only to the court and the parties, and to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 35.
The detailed version
- Albert v. DistroKid LLC · No. 1:25-cv-01705
- Katherine Failla
- June 30, 2025
Background
Amazon.com Services LLC asked for permission to file Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 to a declaration supporting its motion to dismiss the amended complaint under seal, while filing redacted versions publicly. Amazon stated that the exhibits contained commercially sensitive and confidential business information, including pricing information, financial terms, and the method used to calculate those terms.
Amazon argued that public disclosure could cause competitive harm by impairing its ability to negotiate with third parties and giving competitors access to sensitive business information. It represented that its proposed redactions were narrowly limited to the financial and commercial information it considered most sensitive.
Ruling
The court granted the application. Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed the clerk to maintain docket entry 41 under seal, viewable only by the court and the parties. The court also directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 35.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.