Arista Records LLC et al v. Lime Wire LLC et al
MOTION to Seal. Document filed by Arista Music, fka BMG Music, Arista Records LLC, Atlantic Recording Corporation, BMG Music, Capitol Records, Inc., Capitol Records, LLC, fka Capitol Records, Inc., Elektra Entertainment Group Inc., Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc., Interscope Records, Laface Records LLC, Motown Record Company, L.P., Priority Records LLC, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Sony Music Entertainment, fka Sony BMG Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, Inc., Virgin Records America, Inc., Warner Bros. Records Inc..(Lemoine, Melinda)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ARISTA RECORDS LLC; ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION; ARISTA MUSIC, fka BMG MUSIC; CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC fka CAPITOL RECORDS, INC.; ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC.; INTERSCOPE RECORDS; LAFACE RECORDS LLC; MOTOWN RECORD COMPANY, L.P.; PRIORITY RECORDS LLC; SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, fka SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT; UMG RECORDINGS, INC.; VIRGIN RECORDS AMERICA, INC.; and WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC., Plaintiffs, v. LIME WIRE LLC; LIME GROUP LLC; MARK GORTON; and M.J.G. LIME WIRE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendants. PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL Glenn D. Pomerantz (pro hac vice) Kelly M. Klaus (pro hac vice) Melinda E. LeMoine Jonathan H. Blavin (pro hac vice) Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP 355 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 683-9100 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Date: March 2, 2011
06 Civ. 05936 (KMW) ECF CASE
NOTICE TO THE COURT, DEFENDANTS AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: Pursuant to the Amended Protective Order entered in this action on January 6, 2011, Plaintiffs hereby move this Court to place under seal, until further order of this Court, the following document: ∑ Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Declaration of Melinda E. LeMoine in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Preclude Certain Purported Expert Testimony by George Strong
The above-referenced documents contain detailed information Plaintiffs have designated "Restricted Confidential -- Outside Attorney's Eyes Only." For example, information in these documents reflects confidential information regarding particular plaintiffs' digital revenues produced in this litigation. This information is of a kind not ordinarily made public, and could cause competitive harm if made part of the public record. For this reason, Plaintiffs ask the Court to maintain these documents under seal. ∑ ∑ ∑ Exhibits 3 and 5-8 to the Declaration of Melinda E. LeMoine in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Preclude Certain Purported Expert Testimony by George Strong Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Preclude Certain Purported Expert Testimony of Emin GŁn Sirer Exhibits 1-5 to the Declaration of Kelly M. Klaus in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Preclude Certain Purported Expert Testimony by Emin GŁn Sirer
The above-referenced documents contain material that has been designated by Defendants or third parties (e.g., the NPD Group) as either Confidential or ConfidentialAttorney's Eyes Only under the Amended Protective Order, a copy of which is on file with the Court (Dkt. 400). Paragraph 15 of the Amended Protective Order requires a party submitting Confidential or Confidential-Attorney's Eyes Only material to the Court to file such material under seal to protect it from disclosure. Plaintiffs are simultaneously electronically filing a
version of the above-referenced Memoranda of Law that narrowly redacts only that material the Protective Order requires Plaintiffs to keep confidential. Plaintiffs will include this Motion in the Letter Your Honor directed the parties to submit by March 11 collecting all of the requests for under seal treatment that have been filed since January 14. Dated: March 2, 2011 Respectfully submitted s/ Melinda E. LeMoine Melinda E. LeMoine Attorney for Plaintiffs Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 (213) 683-9100 (213) 687-3702 (Fax)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?