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 redactions protecting personal and third-party identifying information.
The temporary order affected Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc., Big Dog Books, LLC, their principals and representatives, non-litigant authors and contractors whose identifying information appeared in the exhibits, Audible, Inc., and members of the public seeking access to the filings.
What happened
Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. and Big Dog Books, LLC asked the court to let Audible file redacted versions of 15 exhibits connected to three motions. They also asked the court to keep the unredacted versions temporarily sealed.
The proposed redactions covered the plaintiffs’ principals’ and representatives’ precise home addresses and telephone numbers, along with names, contact information, and other identifying details of non-litigant authors and contractors. The plaintiffs argued that this information was not important to the court’s work and that disclosure could invade personal privacy.
The court temporarily granted the motion to seal and said it would decide whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when ruling on the underlying motion. Judge Jesse M. Furman also directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 207.
The detailed version
- Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07059
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 14, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs sought permission for Audible, Inc. to file redacted versions of 15 exhibits attached to three filings: Audible’s statement of undisputed facts, its motion to exclude testimony, and its renewed motion for sanctions based on alleged destruction of evidence. The plaintiffs also asked the court to keep the unredacted versions that Audible had filed on March 6, 2023, under seal.
The proposed redactions covered two categories of information. First, they covered portions of the street addresses and home telephone numbers of Jan Bonthu, Srikanth Bonthu, and Elizabeth Noble. The cities of residence and telephone area codes would remain visible. Second, they covered names, contact information, book titles, and other identifying information concerning authors and third-party contractors who were not parties to the case.
Legal standard
The letter explains that federal common law and the First Amendment create a presumption that the public may access court records. For each document, the court must determine whether it is a judicial document—meaning information relevant to the court’s work and useful in deciding the case—and then weigh public access against countervailing interests such as privacy.
Ruling
The motion to seal was granted temporarily. The court stated that it would assess whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 207. This order did not decide the underlying motions or the merits of the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.