Music and Entertainment Rights Licensing Independent Network Limited v. Triller Group Inc., et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: October 10, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-02560
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

msk MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP Bradley J. □□□ A LAW PARTNERSHIP —s INCLUDING ~— PROFESSIONAL (310) 312-3232 Phone CORPORATIONS bym@msk.com

September 10, 2025 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 Re: Music and Entertainment Rights Licensing Independent Network Limited v. Triller Group Inc., et al.., 1:25-cv-02560 (JAV); Letter Motion for Leave to File Redacted Documents Dear Judge Vargas: We are counsel for plaintiff Music and Entertainment Rights Licensing Independent Network Limited (“Merlin”) in the above-referenced action. In accordance with Section 10.c of Your Honor’s Individual Rules, the Court’s Standing Order 19-mc-00583, and ECF Rules & Instructions Section 6, we respectfully submit this letter to request that the Court grant leave to file redacted versions of certain documents filed in connection with Merlin’s Motion for Default Judgment, including, in particular, the Memorandum of Law in Support of Default Judgment and the Declaration of Ryan McWhinnie. These documents contain confidential and sensitive financial and business information, which is subject to a confidentiality agreement between the parties. This information could cause competitive damage to either or both parties if disclosed publicly. Merlin seeks leave to have very limited portions of these two documents filed under seal because they contain information about Merlin’s licensing practices, including but not limited to dollar amounts and specific licensing terms. Courts “routinely permit parties to redact sensitive financial information” from public filings. Graczyk v. Verizon Commce’ns, Inc., No. | 8-CV-6465 (PGG), 2020 WL 1435031, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2020) (collecting cases); see also GoSMILE, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C., 769 F. Supp. 2d 630, 649 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (concluding that material concerning party’s costs should remain under seal); Encyclopedia Brown Prods., Ltd. v. Home Box Office, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 2d 606,614 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (sealing information regarding the “rates charged and incentives offered” due to the economic harm its release could cause). Similarly, “Courts in this District also routinely seal documents to prevent the disclosure of confidential business information.” News Corp. v. CB Neptune Holdings, LLC, No. 21 Civ. 04610 (VSB), 2021 WL 3409663, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2021) (collecting cases); Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 18 Civ. 4500 (GHW), 2021 WL 1222122, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021) (“[C]onfidential ‘commercial information’ of a business . . . has been recognized repeatedly as a proper subject for sealing.”) (citation omitted).

2049 Century Park East 18th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (301) 312-2000 Fax: (310) 312-3100 Website: WWW.Msk.coM

msk September 10, 2025 Letter Motion for Leave to File Redacted Documents Page 2 For the reasons stated above, Merlin seeks leave to file redacted versions of the Memorandum of Law in Support of Default Judgment and the Declaration of Ryan McWhinnie, with very limited redactions. Merlin’s proposed redactions to these documents are highlighted on the versions submitted in connection with this Letter Motion for Leave to File Redacted Documents. Respectfully submitted,

Bradley J. Mullins Plaintiff seeks to redact information regarding the method of calculation used to determine an incremental ayment due under the Most Favored Nation Clause pursuant to a Recorded Music License Agreement between t arties. (Dkt. Nos. 18-19). Plaintiff states that disclosure of this information “could cause competitive damage t or both parties if disclosed publicly.” (Dkt. No. 18). The request to keep under seal the unredacted of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment at Dkt. No. 19 and Declaration of Ry in Support of Motion for Default Judgment at Dkt. No. 19-1 is granted. There exists a strong public right of access to judicial documents under both common law and the First Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006); In re Digital Music Litig., 321 F.R.D. 64, 82 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). Courts must balance the “presumption of access against comparisons, including the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.’” News Corp. v. CB Neptun LLC, No. 21 Civ. 04610 (VSB), 2021 WL 3409663, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2021) (quoting GoSMiLE, v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C., 769 F. Supp. 2d 630, 649 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)). “Competitively-sensitive should be protected against public disclosure if the disclosure would cause significant and irreparable injury.” /d. “Courts in this District also routinely seal documents to prevent the disclosure of business information.” /d. at *2 (collecting cases); see also Spin Master, Ltd. v. Aomore-US, No. 23 7099 (DEH), 2024 WL 3250815, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2024) (“‘[C]ontinued sealing of the documents m e justified only with specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values and only sealing order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim.’ Competing considerations may include the protection ¢ business information,’ the release of which could cause a litigant ‘competitive harm.’” (first quoting 435 F.3d at 124; and then quoting Toretto v. Donnelley Fin. Sols., Inc., 583 F. Supp. 3d 570, 608 2022))). The Court finds that the proposed redactions in Dkt. Nos. 19 and 19-1 are narrowly tailored to protect business information and that Plaintiffs interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the redacted ortions of the filings regarding that business information outweighs the presumption of full public access to the documents in which that information is contained. See Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 18 Civ. □□□□ 2021 WL 1222122, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021) (“‘[C]onfidential “commercial information” of a usiness—including trade secrets, confidential research, internal business documents and information about a usiness’s operations—has been recognized repeatedly as a proper subject for sealing.’”). However, should the information be found to bear upon a determination of damages or should Judge Vargas find that the information bears upon the adjudication of the parties’ substantive rights, Plaintiff may be required to supplemental support for continued sealing. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to maintain Dkt. } 9 under seal. SO ORDERED. | p New York, New York Tay October 10, 2025 Gary Stein United States Magistate Judge