Phase One Network, Inc. v. Ye

Background

Phase One Network, Inc. brought copyright-infringement claims against YE, identified in the opinion as formerly known as Kanye West and doing business as “Yeezy Tech,” Getting Out Our Dreams II, LLC, and G.O.O.D. Music. The claims concern the alleged misuse of music samples from “South Bronx” by Boogie Down Productions. The court’s order addressed two requests to seal parts of the First Amended Complaint: one filed by the defendants at ECF No. 123 and one filed by non-party UMG Recordings, Inc. at ECF No. 127.

Legal standard

The court explained that filed materials relevant to the court’s work are “judicial documents” and generally carry a presumption of public access under common law and the First Amendment. Complaints receive a strong presumption of public access because of their role in the judicial process. A party’s designation of information as confidential during discovery does not, by itself, justify sealing material later filed with the court.

To overcome the presumption, the requesting party must identify a higher value that requires protection and show that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored—that is, limited to the information necessary to protect that interest.

Application

The defendants sought to seal references to specific terms of alleged contracts between certain defendants, asserting that disclosure could cause competitive injury. The court found that the proposed redactions on pages six through nine were narrowly tailored to protect a recognized privacy interest in confidential employment information that could affect future contract negotiations. The court therefore found sealing appropriate for the information covered by the defendants’ request.

UMG sought to seal a communication between a former UMG employee and one of the defendants. UMG argued that disclosure would reveal its licensing practices and the former employee’s identity. The court rejected that request because UMG did not identify with sufficient specificity the harm that disclosure of this particular communication would cause. The court also found that the proposed redactions would not protect the employee’s anonymity because the employee’s title and employment dates remained visible.

Disposition

The court stated that the motions to seal were granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, it GRANTED the motion at ECF No. 123 except to the extent the First Amended Complaint also contained the redactions proposed by UMG, and it DENIED the motion at ECF No. 127 in its entirety. The Clerk was directed to terminate both sealing motions and unseal UMG’s declaration supporting its motion. The parties were ordered to publicly file the First Amended Complaint with limited redactions by March 13, 2024. The court stated that, if they did not do so, it would direct that the documents be unsealed.