Ultra Records, LLC v. Ultra International Music Publishing, LLC
- Subramanian SO-ORDERED
- 1:22-cv-09667
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ultra Records v. Ultra International Music Publishing, Judge Subramanian SO-ORDERED limited redactions for confidential financial information and expert hourly rates.
Ultra International Music Publishing, LLC, which sought to redact confidential information; Ultra Records, LLC, whose damages claim related to the information; and members of the public seeking access to the exhibits.
What happened
Ultra Records, LLC v. Ultra International Music Publishing, LLC concerned a request by Ultra International Music Publishing, LLC to keep certain information from the public in materials supporting its motion about whether expenses could be deducted.
The requested redactions covered sensitive business and financial information about Ultra International Music Publishing’s profits and losses, as well as some expert witnesses’ hourly rates. The company asked to file redacted exhibits publicly and unredacted versions under seal.
The court marked the request “SO ORDERED” on May 10, 2024. Judge Arun Subramanian signed the order. The text does not separately use the word “granted.”
The detailed version
- Ultra Records, LLC v. Ultra International Music Publishing, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09667
- Subramanian SO-ORDERED
- May 10, 2024
Background
Ultra International Music Publishing, LLC asked the court for permission to file limited redacted versions of certain exhibits supporting its motion to exclude evidence about the deductibility of expenses. It proposed filing unredacted versions of those exhibits under seal.
The company said the exhibits contained highly sensitive and confidential business and financial information about its profits and losses, which related to Ultra Records, LLC’s damages claim. It also sought to redact hourly rates for certain expert services. Ultra International Music Publishing argued that public disclosure could harm its confidential business interests and that the information should remain private despite the general presumption that judicial documents are publicly accessible.
Court’s Action
The document ends with the court’s notation, “SO ORDERED,” followed by Judge Arun Subramanian’s signature and the date May 10, 2024. The text does not separately state that the request was “granted,” but the order reflects the court’s approval of the requested filing arrangement. The ruling concerns access to and redaction of exhibits, not the parties’ underlying claims or damages dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.