White v. UMG Recordings, Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-09971
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
White v. UMG Recordings, Inc.: Judge Torres granted defendants’ motion to seal narrowly tailored portions of four exhibits supporting summary judgment.
The defendants and other people whose information appears in the exhibits, as well as members of the public seeking access to the specified portions of those exhibits.
What happened
In White v. UMG Recordings, Inc., defendants asked the court to seal portions of four exhibits filed in support of their summary-judgment motion. The exhibits included a recording agreement, a producer agreement, and two deposition transcripts.
The defendants said the agreements contained sensitive information about royalties and licensing arrangements, and that releasing it could harm UMG’s competitive position. They also argued that some deposition testimony was irrelevant, including inflammatory personal allegations that Christopher Bermudez allegedly lacked personal knowledge of.
The court found the proposed redactions appropriate and narrowly tailored to protect privacy interests and confidential business information. Judge Analisa Torres granted the motion to seal and directed the clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- White v. UMG Recordings, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-09971
- Analisa Torres
- Jan. 5, 2024
Background
By a letter dated May 23, 2023, the defendants moved to seal portions of four exhibits submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment. The exhibits were:
- A recording agreement attached as Exhibit A to Jason Kawejsza’s declaration.
- A producer agreement attached as Exhibit B to Kawejsza’s declaration.
- Jordan Carter’s deposition transcript, attached as Exhibit C to Jeffrey M. Movit’s declaration.
- Christopher Bermudez’s deposition transcript, attached as Exhibit E to Movit’s declaration.
Arguments for Sealing
The defendants argued that the two agreements contained provisions about royalties, licensing arrangements, and other sensitive business information. They said public disclosure was likely to harm UMG’s competitive standing. They also argued that the portions of Carter’s deposition they sought to seal were irrelevant to the lawsuit’s substantive issues. Finally, they argued that Bermudez’s deposition transcript contained inflammatory personal allegations that were irrelevant and that Bermudez lacked personal knowledge of them.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The court reviewed the proposed redactions and found them appropriate and narrowly tailored to protect the defendants’ privacy interests and confidential business information. The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion to seal the exhibits. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 181. This order addressed access to specified exhibits; it did not decide the underlying summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.