Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-07059
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Golden Unicorn Enterprises v. Audible, Judge Furman temporarily granted Audible’s request to seal or redact materials pending review of the underlying motion.
Audible, Plaintiffs, and non-parties whose personal information or confidential business information appeared in the filings and exhibits.
What happened
Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc. involved Audible’s request to seal some exhibits and redact parts of filings connected to Plaintiffs’ opposition to summary judgment and expert-related motions.
Audible identified confidential business information, financial and royalties data, internal business communications, employee information, and personal information about customers, authors, and other non-parties. It asked the court to keep some materials sealed and allow redactions in others.
The court temporarily granted the motion to seal and said it would decide whether the materials should remain sealed or redacted when ruling on the underlying motion. Judge Jesse M. Furman also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 256.
The detailed version
- Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07059
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 17, 2023
Background
Audible asked the court for permission to file redacted versions of Plaintiffs’ opposition to Audible’s summary-judgment motion, Plaintiffs’ responses to Audible’s statement of undisputed facts, and Plaintiffs’ opposition to Audible’s motions to exclude expert opinions. Audible also asked to file certain exhibits under seal and to redact portions of other exhibits.
Audible identified two general categories of information for protection: sensitive business information that could cause competitive harm and personal information about non-parties that was not relevant to Plaintiffs’ motions. The materials included information about returns, royalties, contracts, financial data, internal strategy, business decisions, employees, customers, authors, and communications with third parties.
Court’s Action
The court stated that the motion to seal was granted temporarily. It will assess whether the materials should remain sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion. The order did not make a final determination about continued sealing or redaction, and it did not decide the parties’ underlying summary-judgment or expert-related disputes. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 256.
Result and Classification
This was a procedural order concerning access to court filings, not a decision on the merits of the underlying case. Judge Jesse M. Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.