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 request to seal or redact materials, pending opposition and later review.
Audible, the plaintiffs, and non-parties whose confidential business or personal information appears in the materials; the public’s access to those court filings was temporarily limited.
What happened
Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. and other plaintiffs are litigating claims against Audible, Inc. Audible asked to seal or redact materials supporting its motions for summary judgment, to exclude expert testimony, and for sanctions related to missing evidence.
Audible identified confidential business information, financial and royalty data, and private information about customers, employees, authors, and other non-parties. The request covered exhibits, expert reports, deposition transcripts, emails, chat transcripts, and other litigation materials.
Judge Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. Any opposition was due March 13, 2023, and the court said it would decide whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when ruling on the underlying motions. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 188.
The detailed version
- Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07059
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 6, 2023
Background
Audible asked for permission to file certain materials under seal or in redacted form in connection with its motion for summary judgment, motions to exclude testimony from Thad McIlroy and Joseph Egan, and renewed motion for sanctions based on alleged spoliation, meaning the improper loss or destruction of evidence. Audible also asked to seal its motions, memoranda, declarations, and exhibits while the plaintiffs reviewed them and potentially sought their own sealing or redactions.
Materials at Issue
Audible identified two general categories of information: sensitive business information that could cause competitive harm, and private information about non-parties that was not relevant to the litigation. The requested redactions or sealing covered portions of expert reports and deposition testimony, internal financial analyses and figures, purchases and returns data, royalty information, deposition transcripts, plaintiffs’ royalty records, customer emails and chat transcripts, names and contact information of employees and other non-parties, and portions of plaintiffs’ amended interrogatory responses.
Audible stated that some of the information concerned ACX purchases, returns, and royalties; internal financial systems and calculations; business strategy; customer and employee identities; other authors and companies; and detailed royalty information for named plaintiffs. Audible also stated that it did not rely on some of the information it sought to redact. The letter cited the general presumption of public access to court records and the need to balance that presumption against privacy interests and confidential business information.
Court’s Action
The court temporarily granted the motion to seal. It ordered that any opposition be filed by March 13, 2023. The court said it would assess whether the materials should remain sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motions. This order therefore did not make a final determination that all requested sealing or redactions would remain in place. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 188.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.