Epidemic Sound, AB v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Background

The parties filed motions asking the court to seal documents connected to Meta’s motion to reopen fact discovery and Meta’s motion to stay the case. The court applied the “good cause” standard because the materials were unrelated or only tangentially related to the underlying claims. Under that standard, a party must make a specific showing of the harm that disclosure would cause, and sealing requests must be narrowly tailored.

Rulings on the Discovery-Reopening Materials

The court denied without prejudice Meta’s sealing motion at Docket No. 278, except for the portions described below. Epidemic Sound had sought to seal communications with third parties concerning Meta’s identification of potentially matching music tracks and whether those identifications were infringing. Epidemic Sound cited the General Data Protection Regulation and competitive sensitivity, but did not identify which documents were covered by each reason, explain what the regulation prohibited, specify the competitive or economic harm, or explain why full-document sealing was necessary. The court therefore denied without prejudice the request concerning those communications.

The court granted Epidemic Sound’s request to seal a deposition transcript of Caroline Ekstrom and portions of a brief discussing that transcript because they concerned competitively sensitive information about Epidemic Sound’s creation and acquisition of music in its catalog.

The court denied without prejudice Epidemic Sound’s sealing request at Docket No. 289. That request also concerned third-party communications about potentially matching tracks and infringement. The court found that Epidemic Sound’s unsupported statement that the communications were protected under the General Data Protection Regulation did not establish good cause.

The court denied without prejudice Meta’s request at Docket No. 301 as to portions of Exhibit B because Meta did not explain why disclosure of a song title from its music library would cause prejudice. The court otherwise granted Meta’s request to seal the documents and portions of documents identified in Docket No. 301-1, which Meta said revealed relationships with commercial partners, services provided to them, and licensing terms.

Regarding Docket No. 303, the court granted Epidemic Sound’s request to seal highlighted portions of Exhibit C and Exhibit H. The court otherwise denied without prejudice Epidemic Sound’s request to seal in full the third-party communications and references to those communications in Meta’s reply, again finding that the General Data Protection Regulation assertion lacked sufficient explanation and support.

The court denied Meta’s sealing request at Docket No. 302 concerning documents designated confidential by PK Interactive, LLC d/b/a DistroKid. Meta showed that PK Interactive’s attorneys had been served, but PK Interactive did not respond.

Rulings on the Motion to Stay Materials

The court granted Meta’s narrowly tailored sealing requests at Docket No. 291. Meta sought to seal highlighted portions of Exhibits A and E to the Stillman Declaration, which contained confidential, nonpublic information.

The court also granted Epidemic Sound’s requests at Docket No. 292. Those requests concerned highlighted portions of Meta’s reply that quoted or paraphrased confidential settlement and licensing communications, as well as Exhibit A to the Stillman Declaration, which discussed confidential settlement and licensing issues.

Disposition

The deadline to file amended sealing motions was October 23, 2025. Otherwise, by that date, the parties were required to refile documents consistently with the order. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 278, 280, 289, 291, 292, 301, 302, and 303.