Ultra Records, LLC v. Ultra International Music Publishing, LLC
- Subramanian
- 1:22-cv-09667
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ultra Records v. Ultra International Music Publishing, Judge Subramanian granted redactions for confidential profits-and-loss information but denied them for expert hourly rates.
Ultra International Music Publishing, LLC, whose confidential profits-and-loss information may be redacted, and Ultra Records, LLC, whose access to that information in public filings is affected. The ruling also affects the public availability of the expert’s hourly rate, which the court did not allow to be redacted.
What happened
Ultra International Music Publishing asked the court to allow limited redactions in exhibits supporting its motion about evidence concerning deductible expenses in Ultra Records’ lawsuit. The proposed redactions covered financial information about UIMP’s profits and losses and expert witnesses’ hourly rates.
UIMP argued that the financial information was highly sensitive business information and that the expert rates should also remain private. The request concerned whether those parts of the exhibits could be kept from public view while unredacted versions were filed under seal.
The court granted the request for information describing UIMP’s profits and losses but denied it for the expert’s hourly rate. Judge Arun Subramanian entered the order on May 21, 2024.
The detailed version
- Ultra Records, LLC v. Ultra International Music Publishing, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09667
- Subramanian
- May 21, 2024
Background
Ultra International Music Publishing, LLC (UIMP) asked the court for permission to file limited redacted versions of certain exhibits supporting its motion to exclude evidence concerning the deductibility of expenses. UIMP proposed filing unredacted versions under seal.
The proposed redactions involved information and calculations concerning UIMP’s profits and losses, which UIMP said were relevant to Ultra Records, LLC’s damages claim. UIMP also sought to redact hourly rates for certain expert services. UIMP argued that the financial information was highly confidential business information and that the expert hourly rates also deserved protection from public disclosure.
Ruling
The court granted the request with respect to confidential financial information describing profits and losses. The court denied the request with respect to the expert’s hourly rate. The opinion does not state that the court decided the underlying claims or damages issues in the lawsuit.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.