'94 Sounds LLC v. Rucks
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-08367
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In 94 Sounds v. Rucks, Judge Abrams approved the parties’ protective order governing confidential information and explained procedures for later sealing requests.
94 Sounds, LLC; Jamir Rucks; Alamo Records LLC; and any non-parties who agree to be bound by the protective order.
What happened
In 94 Sounds, LLC v. Rucks, the parties asked the court to approve their agreement protecting certain commercial, financial, business, and personal information exchanged during the lawsuit.
The court approved the protective order and directed the parties, along with any non-parties who agree to be bound by it, to follow its terms.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that anyone seeking to file documents under seal or in redacted form must follow the court’s rules and explain why sealing is justified.
The detailed version
- '94 Sounds LLC v. Rucks · No. 1:20-cv-08367
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 12, 2021
Background
94 Sounds, LLC sued Jamir Rucks and Alamo Records LLC. The court received the parties’ joint proposed confidentiality stipulation and order, along with a motion for a protective order. The parties entered the agreement to protect certain confidential commercial or financial information and proprietary or confidential business or personal information that might be exchanged during the litigation.
Ruling
The court granted the parties’ request to make the protective order an order of the court, finding that good cause had been shown. The parties, and any non-parties who agree to be bound by the order, must comply with its terms.
The court also stated that any party seeking to file a document under seal or in redacted form must follow Rule 5.A of the court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases. Such an application must identify the information to be sealed and show that the applicable standards for sealing have been met, including addressing the relevant authority identified by the court.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.