Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-07059
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Golden Unicorn v. Audible, Judge Furman temporarily granted Audible’s motion to seal materials while awaiting opposition.
Audible, the plaintiffs, non-party individuals whose personal information appeared in the materials, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc. concerns Audible’s request to seal or redact materials related to the plaintiffs’ reply supporting their motion for class certification.
Audible sought limited redactions for personal information about non-parties and confidential business information, including financial data, internal strategy documents, employee information, and business communications. The request covered the reply and several exhibits.
Judge Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal, set February 27, 2023, as the deadline for any opposition, and said the Court would decide later whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when ruling on the underlying motion. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 178.
The detailed version
- Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07059
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 22, 2023
Background
Audible asked the Court for permission for the plaintiffs to file a redacted version of their reply supporting their motion for class certification and to file certain reply exhibits under seal. The request concerned materials identified in ECF No. 176 and related exhibits.
Requested Sealing and Redactions
Audible sought to protect two general categories of information: sensitive business information that could cause competitive harm, and personal information belonging to non-parties that was not relevant to the class-certification motion.
The requested redactions included personally identifiable information, the number of ACX creators, internal financial information about returns and royalties, confidential employee and former-employee deposition testimony, internal business decisions and processes, and employee names and email addresses. Audible also sought to seal or redact financial analyses, internal strategy and returns-policy documents, business correspondence with third parties, draft communications with an author group, compilations containing customer and author information, internal ticket numbers, and internal communications about responses to a software error and the returns policy.
Audible represented that much of the information was not relevant to the plaintiffs’ reply and that the plaintiffs did not rely on the portions Audible sought to seal or redact. Audible also asked to maintain some redactions made when the documents were produced, including redactions of information about employees, authors, customers, unrelated third parties, and communications involving in-house counsel.
Court’s Action
The Court stated: “The motion to seal is granted temporarily.” The Court allowed any opposition to be filed by February 27, 2023, and said it would assess whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion. The order therefore made a temporary sealing decision rather than a final determination about continued sealing or redaction. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 178.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.