Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-07059
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Golden Unicorn v. Audible, Judge Furman granted plaintiffs’ application to keep four unredacted exhibits under seal.
The order affects the public’s access to four unredacted exhibits and protects the privacy and business information of third parties identified in those exhibits. It also affects Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc., Big Dog Books, LLC, and Audible, Inc., because the exhibits remain under seal.
What happened
In Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc., the plaintiffs asked the court to keep four unredacted exhibits under seal. They had allowed redacted versions to be filed publicly, while seeking to protect private business information and the identities and contact information of third parties.
The exhibits included emails and related information about audiobook translators, audiobook production companies, book-cover designers, vendors, pricing, and a reader. The plaintiffs said the redactions were narrowly limited to information that was not publicly known or that could identify innocent third parties.
Judge Furman granted the application, ruling that the privacy interests at stake outweighed the public’s right to access the unredacted documents. He directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 84.
The detailed version
- Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07059
- Jesse Furman
- Oct. 3, 2022
Background
Plaintiffs Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc., and Big Dog Books, LLC, asked the court to keep four unredacted exhibits under seal: ECF Nos. 81-1, 81-2, 81-3, and 81-4. The request followed Audible, Inc.’s letter motion to seal and the court’s temporary order granting that motion.
The plaintiffs had filed redacted versions of the exhibits publicly. They said the redactions protected previously undisclosed financial information, ownership or control information about nonpublic companies, business information, and the privacy interests of third parties. The exhibits included:
- Emails with a German company involved in translating and producing audiobooks, including company-identifying information, contact information, audiobook titles, and nonpublic pricing. - Emails discussing three book-cover designers, including company and representative information, contact details, and pricing. - Emails with a company involved in translating and producing Spanish-language audiobooks, including company and owner information, contact details, and nonpublic pricing. - An email exchange concerning a missing portion of an audiobook, with the name and email address of the reader who reported the omission redacted.
Court’s Analysis
The court recognized that the public has a presumptive right of access to judicial proceedings under the common law and the First Amendment, but stated that the right is not absolute. It applied the principle that sealing is permitted when specific findings show that closure is essential to protect a higher value and is narrowly tailored to that purpose. The court also considered the privacy interests of innocent third parties.
The court determined that the redactions were performed in good faith and were narrowly tailored to protect those privacy interests. Because the sealed documents were identical to publicly filed versions except for the listed redactions, the court concluded that unsealing them would provide the public with no additional information beyond the information implicating those privacy interests.
Disposition
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the application. ECF Nos. 81-1, 81-2, 81-3, and 81-4 shall remain under seal because the privacy interests at stake outweigh the public right of access to the unredacted documents. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 84.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.