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 v. Audible, Judge Furman temporarily granted Audible’s request to seal and redact parts of a supplemental filing.
Audible’s supplemental summary-judgment filing, the plaintiffs reviewing the proposed redactions, the case participants, and public access to the materials.
What happened
In Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc., Audible asked to file sealed and redacted versions of its supplemental reply supporting its motion for summary judgment.
Audible said the proposed redactions covered confidential information about returns and internal business practices, and that disclosure could cause competitive harm. It also asked the court to keep the filing sealed temporarily while the plaintiffs reviewed it.
The court temporarily granted the sealing request and said it would decide whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion. Judge Jesse M. Furman also directed the Clerk to terminate one docket entry and give all case participants access to another.
The detailed version
- Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-07059
- Jesse Furman
- Aug. 21, 2023
Background
Audible asked for permission to file sealed and redacted versions of its supplemental brief supporting its motion for summary judgment. Under the parties’ agreed procedure, Audible also asked the court to provisionally seal the supplemental reply while the plaintiffs reviewed it and considered whether to seek their own sealing or redaction.
Audible’s proposed redactions concerned internal information about returns and confidential internal business practices. Audible argued that the information was sensitive and that public disclosure could cause competitive harm. The letter also discussed the general presumption that court filings are publicly accessible and the need to weigh privacy, confidentiality, and proprietary-business concerns against that presumption.
Ruling
The court temporarily granted the motion to seal. It stated that it would decide whether the materials should remain sealed or redacted when it decided the underlying motion. The court did not make a permanent sealing determination in this order and did not decide the underlying summary-judgment motion.
The court directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 289 and modify access to ECF No. 290 so that all case participants could view it.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.