1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LYRICFIND, INC., Case No. 25-cv-02265-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 9 v. PREJUDICE AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 10 MUSIXMATCH, S.P.A., et al., SEAL 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 14

12 13 On March 3, 2025, LyricFind, Inc. sued Musixmatch, S.p.A. and TPG Global, LLC 14 (collectively, “Defendants”). (Dkt. No. 1.) Pending before the Court is LyricFind’s motion to seal 15 portions of the complaint. (Dkt. No. 14.) LyricFind’s counsel attests “[t]he portions of the 16 Complaint that were redacted on the public docket relate to non-public, confidential information 17 about LyricFind’s and Defendants’ business strategies, including information that LyricFind 18 previously agreed to keep confidential.” (Dkt. No. 14-1 ¶ 5.) 19 Because “courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 20 records and documents, including judicial records and documents,” the starting point is “a strong 21 presumption in favor of access to court records.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809

, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). When a party seeks to seal documents relating to motions “more 23 than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” id. at 1099, the party bears the burden 24 of articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 25 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure,” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. 26 of Honolulu,

, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). Compelling reasons may exist to 27 seal where the documents contain “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive 1 documents “divulge terms of confidential contracts [or] contract negotiations.” Fed. Trade 2 Comm’n vy. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-CV-00220-LHK,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 3 || 2019) 4 The “compelling reasons” standard applies here because a complaint is more than 5 tangentially related to the underlying cause of action—it “forms the foundation of the lawsuit.” In 6 re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., No. 16-MD-02752-LHK,

, at 7 *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2018) (collecting cases applying the “compelling reasons” standard to 8 || requests to seal a complaint). Because the requested redactions are overbroad, the Court denies 9 || without prejudice LyricFind’s motion to seal. While specific information divulging confidential 10 || contracts may satisfy the “compelling reasons” standard for sealing, general information about the 11 parties’ operations does not. The parties shall meet and confer to more narrowly tailor the 12 || requested redactions. The deadline to submit an amended sealing motion is May 30, 2025. 5 13 This Order disposes of Docket No. 14. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 Dated: April 25, 2025 16 & Jeph SsutHlody 8 JAQQUELINE SCOTT CORL United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28