Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs sought permission to file publicly redacted versions of two exhibits attached to their opposition to Audible’s renewed motion for sanctions concerning alleged loss or destruction of evidence. They also sought permission to file unredacted versions under seal. The exhibits consisted of emails that Golden Unicorn Enterprises had previously produced to Audible.

The proposed redactions covered the names, email addresses, contact information, and other identifying information of non-litigant readers and an audiobook producer. The plaintiffs said the redactions were narrowly tailored to protect the privacy of people who had not chosen to participate in the lawsuit. They also said the identities were not cited in their briefing and were of limited usefulness to the court’s work. Audible did not take a position because it had not seen the specific documents.

Legal standard

The filing explained that federal common law and the First Amendment generally favor public access to court documents. Before sealing or redacting a document, a court determines whether it is a “judicial document”—one relevant and useful to the court’s decision-making—and then weighs public access against competing interests such as privacy.

Ruling

Judge Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. The court stated that it would decide whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 22. The order did not make a final determination about continued sealing or redaction.