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

401 Union Street 206.389.4510 E N W I C K 5th Floor Fenwick.com Seattle, WA 98101 Brian D. Buckley [email protected] | 206.389.4515 August 11, 2023 VIA ECF The Honorable Jesse M. Furman Southern District of New York Centre Street, Room 2202 New York, NY 10007 Re: Golden Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. et al. v. Audible, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-07059-JMEF Your Honor: Pursuant to the parties’ agreed-upon procedure (see ECF No. 282), Audible respectfully seeks leave for Plaintiffs to file sealed and redacted versions of their Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Audible’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 284) (“MSJ Suppl. Opposition”).

As discussed in Audible’s letter-motion to seal and redact materials from Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (see ECF No. 144), although there is a presumption of public access, a court must balance “countervailing factors,” including privacy interests as well as confidential and proprietary business information. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006); Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:18-cv-4500 (GHW), 2021 WL 1222122, at *4-6 (S.D.N-Y. Mar. 31, 2021); Lexington Furniture Indus., Inc. v. Lexington Co., AB, No. 19-CV-6239 (PKC), 2021 WL 1143694, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2021).

Here, Audible seeks to redact confidential documents or information that contain sensitive business information, or information that could cause competitive harm. See ECF No. 144 (citing cases); see, e.g., Kewazinga, 2021 WL 1222122, at *4-6.

Audible seeks narrow redactions of Plaintiffs’ MSJ Suppl. Opposition, specifically internal information regarding returns and references to exhibits and deposition testimony about confidential internal business practices. These redactions seek to protect sensitive business information that, if made public, could threaten competitive harm. Audible’s proposed redactions on pages 3-4 are the same redactions Audible sought in relation to Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, while the proposed redactions on page 7 are likewise similar, see ECF Nos. 256, 263.

We are happy to provide any additional information that may be useful to the Court.

August 11, 2023 Page 2 Respectfully, FENWICK & WEST LLP /s/ Brian D. Buckley Brian D. Buckley cc: All counsel of record (via ECF) The motion to seal is granted temporarily. The Court will assess whether to keep the materials at issue sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 285.

SO ORDERED.

GO 14, 2023