Johnson v. Ample Samples Inc.

Background

Eric Johnson’s counsel submitted a letter-motion concerning a planned motion for default judgment against Ample Samples Inc. The letter described the underlying case as involving copyright infringement and violations concerning copyright-management information, arising from the alleged unauthorized use of a photograph created and owned by Johnson. The letter stated that Ample Samples Inc. had not timely appeared, answered, or otherwise responded, and that the clerk had entered a Certificate of Default.

Request to Seal

Johnson asked to file under seal an invoice for a photograph-usage license and to publicly file a redacted version. The proposed redactions covered the identities of the licensees, the license fee, and the licensed usage. The letter also stated that the invoice included Johnson’s Social Security number, most of which would be redacted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 and the magistrate judge’s individual practices.

Johnson argued that public disclosure could disadvantage his future negotiations by revealing licensing prices, licensee identities, the size and nature of the licensees’ businesses, and the uses for which he accepted the fee. He also argued that disclosure could disadvantage the nonparty licensees in future negotiations. The requested filing was intended to support a future request for statutory damages in the planned default-judgment motion.

Ruling

The order states: “Application DENIED. SO ORDERED.” Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses therefore denied the request to file the invoice under seal and a redacted copy publicly. The order did not rule on the planned default-judgment motion or resolve the underlying copyright claims.