Johansen v. Sony Music Entertainment Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-01094
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Johansen v. Sony Music, Judge Ramos granted Sony’s application concerning four confidential agreements tied to its motion to dismiss.
Sony Music Entertainment, the plaintiffs, and the public’s access to four agreements containing the business and financial information described in the application.
What happened
In Johansen v. Sony Music Entertainment Inc., Sony Music asked the court to keep four agreements confidential while it pursued a motion to dismiss the amended class-action complaint.
Sony said the agreements contained private royalty rates, artist advances, producer fees, recording budgets, financial commitments, and other negotiated business terms. It argued that public disclosure could give competitors commercially sensitive information and cause a competitive disadvantage. Sony alternatively asked to file redacted versions if the court would not allow sealing.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the application on January 11, 2021. The text does not separately state whether the agreements were sealed in full or filed in redacted form.
The detailed version
- Johansen v. Sony Music Entertainment Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-01094
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 11, 2021
Background
Sony Music Entertainment, identified as “SME,” filed an application in connection with its motion to dismiss the first amended class-action complaint. The application was made in a January 8, 2021 letter to the court and concerned four agreements referenced in the complaint but not attached to it:
- A May 1, 1977 agreement between David Johansen and Blue Sky Records, Inc. - A May 1, 1977 agreement between Blue Sky and CBS, Inc. - A February 20, 1976 agreement between Steven Van Zandt and CBS, Inc. - An August 3, 1979 agreement between Paul Collins and Bill Graham doing business as Wolfgang Productions.
Arguments and Requested Relief
SME asked permission to file the agreements under seal. It argued that they were confidential business records containing commercially sensitive information, including royalty rates, artist advances, producer fees, recording budgets, financial commitments, and other negotiated contract terms. SME asserted that disclosure would reveal the terms under which it or its predecessor, CBS, Inc., contracted with others and could place SME at a competitive disadvantage.
The letter also stated that the agreements were marked confidential, had been produced to the plaintiffs under an agreement requiring confidential treatment, and were covered by a confidentiality agreement and protective order that the parties had stipulated to and planned to file. SME alternatively requested permission to file redacted versions if the court would not seal the agreements.
Ruling
The court’s endorsement states only: “The application is granted.” Judge Edgardo Ramos therefore granted SME’s application. The provided text does not include a separate explanation of the ruling or specify whether the agreements were sealed in full or filed in redacted form.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.