Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-07059
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Golden Unicorn Enterprises v. Audible, Judge Furman temporarily granted Audible’s motion to seal portions of plaintiffs’ filing, leaving further review for later.
The plaintiffs, Audible, Inc., and members of the public seeking access to the court filings were affected by the temporary sealing order.
What happened
Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc. concerns Audible’s request to let the plaintiffs file sealed and redacted versions of a supplemental memorandum opposing Audible’s summary-judgment motion. Audible sought to protect information about returns and confidential internal business practices.
Audible said the proposed redactions contained sensitive business information whose disclosure could cause competitive harm. The request involved narrow redactions and references to exhibits and deposition testimony.
Judge Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. The court said it would decide whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when ruling on the underlying motion, and directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 285.
The detailed version
- Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07059
- Jesse Furman
- Aug. 15, 2023
Background
Audible asked for permission for the plaintiffs to file sealed and redacted versions of their supplemental memorandum opposing Audible’s motion for summary judgment. Audible proposed narrow redactions covering internal information about returns and references to exhibits and deposition testimony concerning confidential internal business practices.
Audible argued that the information was sensitive business information and that public disclosure could cause competitive harm. Its letter also recognized the general presumption that court records are publicly accessible, subject to competing interests such as privacy and protection of confidential business information.
Court’s action
The court temporarily granted the motion to seal. It stated that it would assess whether the materials should remain sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 285.
Effect of the order
The order temporarily permitted the requested sealing and redactions. It did not finally decide whether the materials would remain sealed or redacted, and it did not decide Audible’s underlying motion for summary judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.