Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-07059
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Golden Unicorn v. Audible: Judge Furman temporarily granted Audible’s request to seal or redact litigation materials.
Audible, Inc.; the plaintiffs; non-parties whose personal 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 seal or redact materials filed with its summary-judgment and expert-testimony motions. It cited confidential business information and personal information about people who were not parties to the case.
The court temporarily granted the motion to seal. The materials will remain redacted or sealed only while the court considers whether continued protection is appropriate when deciding the underlying motion.
Judge Furman also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate docket entry 265. The order did not decide the underlying summary-judgment or expert-testimony motions.
The detailed version
- Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07059
- Jesse Furman
- May 8, 2023
Background
Audible asked for permission to file sealed and redacted versions of an exhibit to its reply supporting its motion for summary judgment and its responses to the plaintiffs’ statement of undisputed material facts. Audible also asked to temporarily seal its summary-judgment reply, those factual responses, its reply supporting motions to exclude the testimony of Thad Mcllroy and Joseph Egan, and related appendices, exhibits, and declarations while the plaintiffs reviewed the materials and considered whether to seek sealing or redactions.
Audible identified two categories of information for protection: sensitive business information that could cause competitive harm and personal information about non-parties that was unrelated to Audible’s motions. The requested redactions included personally identifying information, internal financial information about returns, references to confidential business practices and discussions, and names and email addresses of Audible employees in a customer-service email chain.
Ruling
The motion to seal was granted temporarily. The court stated that it would decide whether the materials should remain redacted or sealed when ruling on the underlying motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 265. This order did not resolve the underlying motions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.