# Radio Music License Committee, Inc. v. American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers

> District Court, S.D. New York · January 21, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10786260

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** January 21, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10786260

## Opinion text

DOCUMENT O'Melveny
ELECTRONICALLY FILED |}
’Melven ers T: +1 310 553 6700 File Number:
1999 Averue oF the Stars F:+1310 2466779 |] DOC #:
Angeles, CA 90067-6035 DATE FILED: 1/21/2025

David M
January 13, 2025 D: +7 310 246 8469
dmarroso@omm.com
VIA ECF
Hon. Stewart D. Aaron
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 1970
New York, NY 10007
Re: Radio Music License Committee, Inc. v. Broadcast Music, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-05023-
JPC-SDA
Dear Judge Aaron:
| write on behalf of non-party Global Music Rights, LLC (“GMR”). GMR respectfully submits this
letter requesting that the Court order sealed very limited portions of the transcript from the
January 2, 2025 hearing. Attached as Exhibit A are the portions of the transcript that GMR
requests that the Court order sealed. The Radio Music License Committee (“RMLC”) and
Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”) do not object to this request.
Although documents “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the
judicial process” are entitled to a presumption of public access, the presumption of access must
be balanced against “competing considerations.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435
F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). Among the relevant countervailing factors are the “privacy
interests of those resisting disclosure,” and the “nature and degree of injury” that will result from
disclosure. /d. at 120.
A party’s or non-party’s interest in keeping confidential its highly sensitive business information
is sufficient to tip the scale in favor of sealing the documents that contain such information. See
GoSMILE, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C., 769 F. Supp. 2d 630, 649— 50 (S.D.N.Y.
2011) (granting motion to seal documents containing “highly proprietary material concerning the
defendants’ marketing strategies, product development, costs and budgeting”). Similarly, if the
disclosure of a party’s or non-party’s confidential business information places such party at risk
of competitive harm, there is compelling justification for sealing the documents containing such
information. See Haley v. Teachers Ins. and Annuity Assn. of Am., 2020 WL 3618573, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2020) (“The sealing of documents may be justified to preserve higher values,
including the need to protect an entity from competitive injury.”). And so courts in this district
routinely grant such requests. See, e.g., FuboTV Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company, No. 24-cv-
1363, Dkt. 373 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2025) (granting request to seal portions of hearing transcript
that “contain highly commercially sensitive and confidential business information including, for
example, confidential terms of competitively sensitive contracts”).

TORMVHEeGOeU WOUMUCHIUGE Ff
Attorney-Client Communication & Work Product O Melveny

GMR’s request is narrowly tailored. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120. GMR only seeks to redact
two references made by BMI’s counsel at the hearing to terms that GMR has in individual
licenses with specific radio station groups. The existence of these terms is not publicly known
and is highly competitively sensitive, particularly given that these types of terms are still in effect
in some of GMR’s current licenses. See Louis Vuitton, 97 F. Supp. 3d at 511 (granting motion to
seal where proposed redactions, if revealed, “may provide valuable insights into a company’s
current business practices”) (citation omitted). The disclosure of the provisions GMR seeks to
redact would cause competitive harm to GMR by revealing to competitors and other industry
participants with whom GMR is frequently in negotiations commercially sensitive information
about terms in GMR’s licenses with radio stations and station groups.
Further, neither the RMLC nor BMI will be prejudiced by this request because both are already
aware of the redacted information.
GMR therefore respectfully requests that the Court maintain the portions of the transcript
designated in Exhibit A under seal.
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ David Marroso

David Marroso (pro hac vice)
Partner
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP

Counsel for Non-Party Global Music Rights, LLC

Application GRANTED. For the reasons set forth by GMR, the Court finds that the proposed
redactions are narrowly tailored to protect confidential business information. The Clerk of Court is
respectfully requested to file the redacted version of the January 2, 2025 hearing transcript (see ECF
No. 147-1) as a separate entry on the ECF docket and to maintain the underacted version filed at
ECF No. 143 under seal. SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 21, 2025 Aer or Can

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10786260. Public record. Not legal advice.