Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. v. Audible, Inc.

North Carolina South Carolina Law OFrrices Or 555 Souk Mangum Sur pura □□□ Raloigh Swerve (GOO) 220-7321 (P) ey See veioseeaoaene Golesbors Sanford Tax ID: 56-2046742 aeedhe Wee www. farrin.com Henderson Winston-Salem . . □ March 16, 2023 The motion to seal is granted temporarily.

Court will assess whether to keep the By CM/ECF materials at issue sealed or redacted when The Honorable Jesse M. Furman deciding the underlying motion. The Cler United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 22 Thurgood Marshall Courthouse Centre Street, Room 2202 SO ORDERED.

New York, NY 10007 Re: Golden Unicorn Enters., Inc. v. Audible, Inc., 1:21-cv-7059-JMF Dear Judge Furman: Mgtch 17, 2023 Plaintiffs write pursuant to Section 7(C) of Your Honor’s Individual Rules and Practices in Crvil Cases, seeking leave (1) to file, publicly, redacted versions of two exhibits to Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Audible’s Renewed Motion for Spoliation Sanctions (“Brief”) and (2) to file unredacted versions of the exhibits under seal. These exhibits are e-mails that Plaintiff Golden Unicorn Enterprises previously produced to Audible. The redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of non-litigants whose identities are not at issue in this litigation. Plaintiffs do not seek to maintain any documents entirely under seal.

In accordance with Section 7(C)(@), Plaintiffs contacted counsel for Audible early this afternoon to meet and confer in order to “narrow the scope of the request.” Plaintiffs’ represented to Audible that the documents had been produced to Audible and that the redactions would cover names and contact information of third-party vendors and of readers, as the parties have done with previous filings.

Plaintiffs did not identify the specific documents, because Plaintiffs were finalizing their Brief. Audible responded that it was unable to take a position without knowing which documents were at issue.

Plaintiffs believe that the meet-and-confer process 1s unlikely to “narrow the scope of the request,” because Audible did not object when some of these documents were produced to Audible in redacted form, nor when Plaintiffs requested the filing of e-mails with similarly narrow redactions as exhibits to other briefs.

Both federal common law and the First Amendment establish a presumption of public access to judicial documents. See In re New York City Policing During Summer 2020 Demonstrations, 20-CV-8924- CM-GWG, 2022 WL 7886182, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2022) (citing Lagosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006)). A court weighing a motion to seal or redact documents must first determine the extent to which each one is a “judicial document,” that is, whether it is “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” Id. (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995)). The court must then weigh the presumption of access against countervailing interests such as privacy interests. See zd. at *2.

Identifying information of non-litigant readers (Exh. D) From the following e-mails, Plaintiffs have redacted the names, contact information, and other identifying information of readers. e GUE_00005411, E-mail from reader to Annette Stone, a contractor for Plaintiff Golden Unicorn Enterpises, Inc., April 28, 2021. ‘The reader sent Ms. Stone a link to an audiobook review that she posted on Audible’s website. The audiobook is of a novel by Jan Bonthu, owner and president of GUE. e GUE_00005434, E-mail from Ms. Stone to reader, March 30, 2020. Here, Ms. Stone sends the reader a promotional code for one of Ms. Bonthu’s books, which Audible provides to authors for this purpose. © GUE_00005434, E-mail thread between Ms. Stone and reader, spanning from January 2020 through March 2020, discussing promotional codes, the content of Ms. Bonthu’s audiobooks, and reviews.

Identifying information of non-litigant audiobook producer (Exh. E) From the following thread of e-mails, Plaintiffs have redacted the names, contact information, and other identifying information of readers. e GUE_00005434, E-mail thread between Ms. Stone, a producer of German-language audiobooks, and GUE Vice President Srikanth Bonthu, December 14 through December 21, 2021. The producer volunteers its production prices and publishing conditions, and Ms. Stone relays the information to Mr. Bonthu.

Plaintiffs have redacted the readers’ and producer’s names, e-mail addresses, and information such as precise office locations that would readily identify them. ‘These people’s and production company’s names are not cited in Plaintiffs’ briefing, and their names and other identifying information are of limited “relevan[ce] to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” In re New York City Policing, 2022 WL. 7886182, at *1. ‘Yo the extent the Court considers this information at all, its importance to the Court’s ruling on class certification 1s likely to be outweighed the privacy interests of individuals who have not elected to participate as litigants. Id. at *2.

Respectfully, oF Mitchell M. Breit a A, Leland Belew EE ED Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips & Grossman Chris Bagley)” One Pennsylvania Plaza, Floor 50 Gary Jackson New York, NY 10119 Law Offices of James Scott Farrin (347) 668-8445 S. Mangum Street, Suite 800 [email protected] Durham, NC 27701 (919) 287-5037 P. Renée Wicklund [email protected] Richman Law & Policy Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 259-5688 [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc., and Big Dog Books, LLC CC: Counsel of Record via CM/ECF