Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-07059
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Golden Unicorn Enterprises v. Audible, Judge Furman temporarily granted Audible’s sealing request while allowing opposition before deciding permanent access.
Audible, the plaintiffs seeking class certification, and non-parties whose confidential business or personal information appeared in the materials.
What happened
In Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc., Audible asked the court to let plaintiffs file a redacted class-certification memorandum and seal certain exhibits. The requested protections covered sensitive business information and private information about people who are not parties.
The court temporarily granted the motion to seal. It set January 13, 2023, as the deadline for any opposition and said it would decide whether the materials should remain sealed or redacted permanently when it decided the underlying motions.
Judge Furman also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 144. This order addressed public access to court materials, not the merits of the class-certification motion.
The detailed version
- Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07059
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 9, 2023
Background
Audible asked the court for permission for plaintiffs to file a redacted version of their memorandum supporting class certification and to file certain exhibits under seal. The materials included deposition transcripts, proposed expert reports, internal strategy and financial documents, and information about customers, authors, employees, and other non-parties.
Audible identified two main reasons for the requested restrictions: protecting sensitive business information that could cause competitive harm and protecting private information about non-parties that was not relevant to the class-certification motion. The requested redactions included information about Audible’s business strategies, internal projects, financial processes, royalty calculations, returns, membership programs, agreements with non-parties, and employee email addresses.
Legal standard
The court described a presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible under both the common law and the First Amendment. That presumption is not absolute. A court may restrict access when specific findings show that doing so is necessary to protect a more important interest and that the restriction is narrowly tailored. Relevant interests can include business secrecy, privacy, and the potential harm from disclosure.
The court noted that confidential commercial information—including trade secrets, research and development information, marketing plans, revenue and pricing information, internal business documents, and information about business operations—can justify sealing or redaction. It also noted that private information about non-parties may receive protection when it is not relevant to the litigation.
Ruling
The Motion to Seal was granted temporarily. The court ordered that any opposition be filed by January 13, 2023. It stated that it would decide whether to keep the disputed materials sealed or redacted permanently when deciding the underlying motions. Thus, the order did not make a final decision on permanent sealing or redaction.
The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 144. The order did not decide the merits of plaintiffs’ class-certification motion or the underlying dispute between the parties.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.