# LyricFind, Inc. v. Musixmatch, S.p.A.

> District Court, N.D. California · April 25, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10852453

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** April 25, 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/10852453

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 LYRICFIND, INC., Case No. 25-cv-02265-JSC

8 Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
9 v. PREJUDICE AMENDED
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
10 MUSIXMATCH, S.P.A., et al., SEAL
11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 14

12
13 On March 3, 2025, LyricFind, Inc. sued Musixmatch, S.p.A. and TPG Global, LLC
14 (collectively, “Defendants”). (Dkt. No. 1.) Pending before the Court is LyricFind’s motion to seal
15 portions of the complaint. (Dkt. No. 14.) LyricFind’s counsel attests “[t]he portions of the
16 Complaint that were redacted on the public docket relate to non-public, confidential information
17 about LyricFind’s and Defendants’ business strategies, including information that LyricFind
18 previously agreed to keep confidential.” (Dkt. No. 14-1 ¶ 5.)
19 Because “courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public
20 records and documents, including judicial records and documents,” the starting point is “a strong
21 presumption in favor of access to court records.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809
22 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). When a party seeks to seal documents relating to motions “more
23 than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” id. at 1099, the party bears the burden
24 of articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the
25 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure,” Kamakana v. City & Cnty.
26 of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). Compelling reasons may exist to
27 seal where the documents contain “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive
1 documents “divulge terms of confidential contracts [or] contract negotiations.” Fed. Trade
2 Comm’n vy. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-CV-00220-LHK, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3,
3 || 2019)
4 The “compelling reasons” standard applies here because a complaint is more than
5 tangentially related to the underlying cause of action—it “forms the foundation of the lawsuit.” In
6 re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., No. 16-MD-02752-LHK, 2018 WL 9651897, at
7 *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2018) (collecting cases applying the “compelling reasons” standard to
8 || requests to seal a complaint). Because the requested redactions are overbroad, the Court denies
9 || without prejudice LyricFind’s motion to seal. While specific information divulging confidential
10 || contracts may satisfy the “compelling reasons” standard for sealing, general information about the
11 parties’ operations does not. The parties shall meet and confer to more narrowly tailor the
12 || requested redactions. The deadline to submit an amended sealing motion is May 30, 2025.
5 13 This Order disposes of Docket No. 14.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
3 15 Dated: April 25, 2025
16
&
Jeph SsutHlody
8 JAQQUELINE SCOTT CORL
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10852453. Public record. Not legal advice.