Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-07059
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Golden Unicorn v. Audible, Judge Furman temporarily granted a request to redact personal information and seal unredacted exhibits while allowing opposition.
Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc., Big Dog Books, LLC, Audible, Inc., and non-litigant authors whose identifying information appeared in the exhibits.
What happened
Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. and Big Dog Books, LLC asked the court to allow public versions of eleven exhibits with narrow redactions in connection with class-certification proceedings against Audible, Inc. The proposed redactions covered plaintiffs’ home addresses and telephone numbers and identifying information about authors who were not parties to the case.
The plaintiffs argued that these details were not important to deciding class certification and that privacy concerns justified the redactions. They did not ask to keep the documents entirely sealed, but sought to maintain the unredacted versions under seal while filing redacted versions publicly.
Judge Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. He allowed opposition by February 8, 2023, and stated that the court would decide whether the material should remain sealed or redacted permanently when ruling on the underlying motions. The clerk was directed to terminate docket entry 167.
The detailed version
- Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07059
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 3, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs, Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. and Big Dog Books, LLC, sought permission to publicly file redacted versions of eleven exhibits connected to the class-certification proceedings. The unredacted versions had been filed under seal by Audible, Inc. The filing discussed the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible and the need to balance that presumption against privacy interests.
Requested Redactions
The plaintiffs proposed redacting street addresses and home telephone numbers associated with plaintiffs while leaving their cities and telephone area code visible. They also proposed redacting names, contact information, book titles, and other identifying details concerning authors who were mentioned in correspondence or testimony but were not litigants. The materials included deposition transcripts, emails, interrogatory responses, and a Facebook comment.
The plaintiffs argued that the redacted information was of limited usefulness to the court’s decision-making and that revealing it could create privacy and intrusion risks. They also stated that they did not seek to keep the documents entirely sealed.
Court’s Action
The court temporarily granted the motion to seal. Any opposition was due February 8, 2023. The court stated that it would determine whether the materials should remain sealed or redacted permanently when deciding the underlying motions. The clerk was directed to terminate docket entry 167.
The order did not make a permanent ruling on the requested redactions or decide the underlying class-certification issues.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.