Mujae Group, Inc. v. Spotify USA Inc. ( 2022 )

Lj Davis Wrig nt 1251 ‘Avenue of the Americas ij Tremaine LLP New York, NY 10020-1104 Christopher L. Donati 212.603.6422 tel 212.379.5207 fax chrisdonati@dwt.com April 18, 2022 The request to seal is granted. So ordered. The Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein /s/ Alvin K. Hellerstein United States District Judge April 18, 2022 United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street, Room 1050 New York, NY 10007 Re: Mujae Grp., Inc. d/b/a VoxTonePRO vy. Spotify USA Inc. & Spotify AB, No. 1:20-cv-06719-AKH Dear Judge Hellerstein: This firm is counsel to Defendants Spotify USA Inc. and Spotify AB (collectively, “Spotify’”). We write pursuant to Your Honor’s Individual Rule 4.B, Rule 5.2(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Standing Order 19-MC-583, Section 6 of the SDNY Electronic Case Filing Rules and Instructions, and Section I.H of the Manual on CM/ECF Sealed Filings in Unsealed Civil and Miscellaneous Cases to request that the Court seal the document filed at ECF. No. 98, Ex. D (the “Affiliation Agreement”).! Although there is a “long-established general presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents,” certain sensitive documents and information can overcome this presumption. Bernstein v. O’ Reilly, 307 F.Supp.3d 161, 165 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a motion to seal should be granted, (1) “the [c]ourt must first determine whether such document is a ‘judicial document;’” (2) “the court must determine the weight of the presumption of access, which “must be governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts;’” and (3) “‘a court must then balance the weight of that presumption against ‘competing considerations,’ including ‘the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency and the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.’” Partneros v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., No. 18-cv-7834, 2019 WL 10966199, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2019) (quoting Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006)). The Protective Order agreed to by the parties and entered by the Court permits parties to use a “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation. See Protective Order, ECF No. 75, § 9(a). This designation is warranted only where material “contains or reflects confidential, proprietary, and/or commercially sensitive information.” See id. Plaintiff, who produced this Spotify regrets that this document was initially filed without seal. However, Spotify sent the clerks of the Southern District of New York an emergency sealing request pursuant to their procedure, and the clerk’s office has temporarily placed the document under seal. DWT.COM Anchorage | Bellevue | Los Angeles | New York Portland | San Francisco | Seattle | Washington, D.C. document to Spotify, designated the Affiliation Agreement as “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.”2 Accordingly, Spotify respectfully requests, as required by the Protective Order, that the Court seal the Affiliation Agreement in accordance with Plaintiff’s claim that the document warrants such protection. Respectfully submitted, DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP By: /s/ Christopher L. Donati Sharon L. Schneier Roy P. Salins Christopher L. Donati 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 489-8230 Fax: (212) 489-8340 sharonschneier@dwt.com roysalins@dwt.com chrisdonati@dwt.com KLARIS LAW Lacy H. Koonce, III 1115 Broadway, 11th Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: (917) 612-5861 lance.koonce@klarislaw.com Attorneys for Defendants Spotify USA Inc. and Spotify AB 2 Spotify does not believe the Affiliation Agreement, which is a generic independent contractor agreement that does not appear to contain anything reflecting or concerning Plaintiff’s purported trade secrets about which Plaintiff has based this case, warrants the “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation. Spotify files this request to comply with the Protective Order and does not waive any arguments concerning whether the Affiliation Agreement should continue to bear the “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation.