Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 18, 2022

Mujae Group, Inc. v. Spotify USA Inc.

Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Docket
1:20-cv-06719
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Mujae Group v. Spotify USA, Judge Hellerstein granted Spotify’s request to seal an Affiliation Agreement.

Who this affects

The Affiliation Agreement filed as ECF No. 98, Exhibit D, was sealed; the ruling affected Spotify USA Inc., Spotify AB, the plaintiff, and public access to that document.

What happened

Mujae Group, Inc. v. Spotify USA Inc. concerns a request involving an Affiliation Agreement filed as an exhibit in the case. Spotify USA Inc. and Spotify AB asked the court to seal the document after it was initially filed without a seal.

Spotify said the plaintiff had marked the agreement “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the parties’ protective order. Spotify also said it did not believe the agreement contained information about the plaintiff’s claimed trade secrets, but requested sealing to comply with the protective order and did not give up its arguments about the confidentiality designation.

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted the request to seal on April 18, 2022. The order did not decide whether the agreement properly deserved the confidentiality designation on an ongoing basis.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Mujae Group, Inc. v. Spotify USA Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-06719
Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Date
Apr. 18, 2022

Background

Spotify USA Inc. and Spotify AB asked the court to seal an Affiliation Agreement filed as ECF No. 98, Exhibit D. Spotify said the plaintiff had produced the agreement and designated it “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the protective order entered in the case. The agreement was initially filed without a seal, but the clerk’s office temporarily placed it under seal after Spotify submitted an emergency sealing request.

Parties’ Position

Spotify’s counsel argued that the court could seal sensitive documents after weighing the public-access presumption against competing interests, including privacy and protection of confidential commercial information. Spotify stated that it did not believe the agreement—a generic independent-contractor agreement—appeared to contain information reflecting or concerning the plaintiff’s alleged trade secrets. Spotify nevertheless requested sealing to comply with the protective order and expressly did not waive its arguments about whether the agreement should continue to carry the confidentiality designation.

Ruling

The court granted the request to seal the Affiliation Agreement. The order did not resolve whether the document should continue to be designated “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” beyond this sealing ruling. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein signed the order on April 18, 2022.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.