White v. UMG Recordings, Inc.

S.D. New York

White v. UMG Recordings, Inc.

DecidedJanuary 5, 2024

Docket1:20-cv-09971

StatusUnknown

This text of White v. UMG Recordings, Inc. (White v. UMG Recordings, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

White v. UMG Recordings, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED JORDAN WHITE, DOC #—_—_ DATE FILED: _ 1/5/2024 Plaintiff, -against- 20 Civ. 9971 (AT) UMG RECORDINGS, INC. (d/b/a ORDER INTERSCOPE RECORDS); JORDAN CARTER, p/k/a (PLAYBOI CARTI) et al., Defendants. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: By letter dated May 23, 2023, Defendants move to seal portions of four exhibits in support of their motion for summary judgment. Mot., ECF No. 181. Defendants seek to seal portions of (1) exhibit A to Jason Kawejsza’s declaration, a recording agreement, ECF No. 178-1; (2) exhibit B to Kawejsza’s declaration, a producer agreement, ECF No. 178-2; (3) exhibit C to Jeffrey M. Movit’s declaration, the deposition transcript of Defendant Jordan Carter, ECF No. 179-3; and (4) exhibit E to Movit’s declaration, the deposition transcript of Christopher Bermudez, ECF No. 179- 5 (collectively, the “Exhibits”). ECF No. 181. The Court concludes that Defendants have met their burden to establish that sealing of the Exhibits is warranted. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). First, Defendants argue that the two agreements contain “provisions concerning royalties, licensing arrangements, and other sensitive business information,” the public release of which “‘is likely to harm UMG’s competitive standing.” Mot. at 2. Second, they argue that the portions of Carter’s deposition that they seek to seal are “are irrelevant to the substantive merits of this lawsuit.” Jd. And third, they contend that Mr. Bermudez’s deposition transcript contains “inflammatory personal allegations” that are irrelevant to the case and of which Bermudez “has no personal knowledge.” /d. at 3. The Court has reviewed the proposed redactions and finds them to be appropriate and narrowly tailored to protect Defendants’ privacy interests and confidential business information. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to seal the Exhibits is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 181. SO ORDERED. oat te aay ee vork ANALISATORRES CW FOMK, NEW FOF United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED JORDAN WHITE, DOC #—_—_ DATE FILED: _ 1/5/2024 Plaintiff, -against- 20 Civ. 9971 (AT) UMG RECORDINGS, INC. (d/b/a ORDER INTERSCOPE RECORDS); JORDAN CARTER, p/k/a (PLAYBOI CARTI) et al., Defendants. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: By letter dated May 23, 2023, Defendants move to seal portions of four exhibits in support of their motion for summary judgment. Mot., ECF No. 181. Defendants seek to seal portions of (1) exhibit A to Jason Kawejsza’s declaration, a recording agreement, ECF No. 178-1; (2) exhibit B to Kawejsza’s declaration, a producer agreement, ECF No. 178-2; (3) exhibit C to Jeffrey M. Movit’s declaration, the deposition transcript of Defendant Jordan Carter, ECF No. 179-3; and (4) exhibit E to Movit’s declaration, the deposition transcript of Christopher Bermudez, ECF No. 179- 5 (collectively, the “Exhibits”). ECF No. 181. The Court concludes that Defendants have met their burden to establish that sealing of the Exhibits is warranted. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). First, Defendants argue that the two agreements contain “provisions concerning royalties, licensing arrangements, and other sensitive business information,” the public release of which “‘is likely to harm UMG’s competitive standing.” Mot. at 2. Second, they argue that the portions of Carter’s deposition that they seek to seal are “are irrelevant to the substantive merits of this lawsuit.” Jd. And third, they contend that Mr. Bermudez’s deposition transcript contains “inflammatory personal allegations” that are irrelevant to the case and of which Bermudez “has no personal knowledge.” /d. at 3. The Court has reviewed the proposed redactions and finds them to be appropriate and narrowly tailored to protect Defendants’ privacy interests and confidential business information. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to seal the Exhibits is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 181. SO ORDERED. oat te aay ee vork ANALISATORRES CW FOMK, NEW FOF United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

White v. UMG Recordings, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-umg-recordings-inc-nysd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack