Epidemic Sound, AB v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-04223
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Epidemic Sound v. Meta, Judge Corley granted Meta’s renewed request to seal specified portions of filings containing confidential information.
Meta’s filings and the specified highlighted portions containing confidential financial, operational, technology, strategy, damages, and licensing information; public access to those portions is limited by the sealing ruling.
What happened
Epidemic Sound, AB v. Meta Platforms, Inc. concerned Meta’s renewed request to keep selected portions of court filings from public view. Meta said its earlier request had mislabeled the relevant docket numbers.
The request covered highlighted portions of Meta’s motion to exclude expert Bradley T. Sharp and Meta’s reply supporting that motion. Meta identified financial and operational information, damages estimates, proprietary technology and strategy details, and licensing terms as confidential.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley granted the request for each identified portion. The order disposes of Docket No. 524.
The detailed version
- Epidemic Sound, AB v. Meta Platforms, Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-04223
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Aug. 12, 2026
Background
On July 27, 2026, the court ruled on Meta’s broader request to seal documents and briefing related to the parties’ summary-judgment motions, Epidemic’s sanctions motion, and expert-related motions. In that earlier order, the court denied without prejudice Meta’s request to seal portions of its motion to exclude Bradley T. Sharp and its reply because Meta had not properly identified the information it sought to seal.
Meta then filed a renewed sealing motion, explaining that the docket numbers for the documents had been mislabeled in its earlier motion.
The renewed request
The renewed motion addressed highlighted portions of two filings:
- Portions of Meta’s motion to exclude Bradley T. Sharp, identified as Docket No. 495-12, that concerned nonpublic financial and operational information, damages estimates, proprietary technology, user information, brand strategy, and licensing terms. - A highlighted portion of Meta’s reply supporting that motion, also identified as Docket No. 495-22, that concerned commercially sensitive licensing terms and damages estimates based on nonpublic financial information.
Ruling
The court granted Meta’s renewed request for each identified portion. The court found that the highlighted material contained confidential financial information, confidential licensing terms, damages estimates based on confidential information, or information about Meta’s proprietary technology, user information, and related brand strategy. The order states that it disposes of Docket No. 524.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.