Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.OtherFiled Apr. 28, 2023

Sony Music Entertainment v. Triller, Inc.

Judge
P. Castel
Docket
1:22-cv-07380
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Sony Music Entertainment v. Triller, Inc., Judge Castel received a consent request to seal contract-payment terms, but the provided text contains no ruling.

Who this affects

Sony Music Entertainment, Triller, Inc., and members of the public seeking access to the court filing.

What happened

Sony Music Entertainment v. Triller, Inc. concerns a contract between Sony Music Entertainment and Triller, Inc. for distributing recorded music. Sony Music said Triller stopped making payments under that agreement in March 2022, and the parties reached a stipulation about Sony Music’s contract claims.

Sony Music asked the court to keep the unredacted stipulation under seal. It sought to redact the monthly payment amounts and the interest rate for late payments, arguing that disclosure could harm its competitive position. Triller consented to the request.

The provided text is a letter requesting sealing, not a court ruling. It does not state whether Judge Castel granted or denied the request.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Sony Music Entertainment v. Triller, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07380
Judge
P. Castel
Date
Apr. 28, 2023

Background

The provided document is a consent letter motion filed on behalf of Sony Music Entertainment and other plaintiffs against Triller, Inc. Sony Music stated that it entered into a content distribution agreement with Triller, effective in September 2016, including later amendments. According to the letter, Sony Music’s breach-of-contract claims arose from Triller’s failure to make payments beginning in March 2022.

The letter stated that the parties had reached a stipulation concerning Triller’s liability on Sony Music’s breach-of-contract claims. Sony Music also said it was seeking partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) to narrow the issues remaining in the case. The text provided here does not include the stipulation, the separate motion for partial final judgment, or an order addressing either request.

Sealing request

Sony Music asked the court to allow the unredacted stipulation, filed at docket entry 44, to remain under seal. It sought to keep confidential the specific monthly amounts payable under the agreement and the interest rate applicable to late payments. The letter said that Triller consented to the requested relief.

Sony Music argued that the agreement was confidential by its terms and that it kept the terms of similar agreements with other digital service providers confidential. It asserted that public disclosure of the payment amounts and interest rate could give other contracting parties insight into Sony Music’s negotiation strategies and create a competitive disadvantage. Sony Music also argued that the proposed redactions were narrow because the public version would still disclose the total judgment amount.

Disposition

The provided text contains Sony Music’s request and its legal arguments about public access to court documents and confidential business information. It does not contain a judicial analysis, an order, or a stated disposition by Judge P. Kevin Castel. Accordingly, the text does not establish whether the sealing motion was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.