Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-07059
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Golden Unicorn v. Audible: Judge Furman temporarily granted Audible’s motion to seal or redact exhibits, leaving final sealing decisions for the underlying motion.
Audible, the plaintiffs, the experts whose materials were submitted, non-parties whose information appeared in the materials, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
In Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc., Audible asked to temporarily seal or redact parts of expert reports and a deposition transcript. It said the materials included sensitive business information, return percentages, financial calculations, and prior expert work involving non-parties.
The court temporarily granted the motion to seal. The court said it would decide whether the materials should remain sealed or redacted when it decided the underlying motion.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 244. This order addressed access to litigation materials, not the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07059
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 10, 2023
Background
Audible asked for permission to file certain exhibits under seal or with redactions in connection with its opposition to the plaintiffs’ motions to exclude the opinions of John Rodzvilla and Juli Saitz. Audible also asked that its opposition and all exhibits be temporarily sealed while the plaintiffs reviewed the materials and considered whether to request sealing or redactions.
The requested redactions covered portions of reports by the plaintiffs’ proposed experts Thad McIlroy and Joseph Egan, reports by Audible’s experts John Rodzvilla and Juli Saitz, and portions of Juli Saitz’s deposition transcript. Audible identified sensitive business information, including information about ACX creators, internal strategy, publisher information, royalty calculations, financial systems, return percentages, and non-public expert work involving non-parties.
Court’s Action
The court granted the motion to seal temporarily. It stated that it would decide whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 244.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The order did not decide whether the requested materials should remain sealed permanently, and the provided text does not show a ruling on the underlying motions or the parties’ substantive claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.