1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CONCORD MUSIC GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 24-cv-03811-EKL (SVK)

8 Plaintiffs,

SEALING ORDER RE DISCOVERY

9 v. DISPUTES AND OMNIBUS

DISCOVERY HEARING

10 ANTHROPIC PBC, Re: Dkt. Nos. 438, 444, 484, 487 11 Defendant.

12 Before the Court are administrative motions to seal in connection with a number of 13 discovery disputes filed by the Parties and raised during the October 10, 2025 Order to Show 14 Cause and Discovery Hearing. See Dkts. 438, 444, 484 (collectively, the “Motions”).1 Pursuant 15 to Civ. L.R. 79-5(f), Defendant Anthropic PBC (“Anthropic”) has filed statements in support of 16 Plaintiffs’ (“Publishers”) motions to seal where appropriate. See Dkt. 446 (in support of Dkt. 17 438); Dkt. 464 (in support of Dkt. 444). Publishers have not opposed any of these motions. 18 Having considered the submissions, the relevant law and the record in this action, the Court 19 GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motions. 20 The Parties have had multiple sealing disputes before this Court and by this point are 21 familiar with the sealing standard. See, e.g., Dkt. 378 at 2 (“Prior Order”). Courts recognize a 22 “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and 23 documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) 24 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). However, for 25 records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the 26 case,” such as “a discovery motion unrelated to the merits of the case,” the lower “good cause” 27 1 standard applies. Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); see 2 also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. The Court finds good cause to seal the following information: 3 Document Text to be Sealed Basis for Sealing / Court Ruling 4 Plaintiffs’ Third Set Highlighted portions The Court previously found good cause to seal 5 of Requests for at ECF pages: information disclosing specific details about its Production of sources of training datasets to the extent they are 6 Documents and 9, except line 12; not publicly known or disclosed due to their Things to Defendant 10; and competitive sensitivity. See Dkt. 378 at 5-6. 7 11 Publishers do not oppose this request. [Dkt. 438-1] Consistent with this Prior Order, this request is 8 GRANTED IN PART. Specifically, 9 “YouTube subtitles” is alleged in Publishers’ public FAC (Dkt. 337) and was not sought to be 10 sealed by Anthropic, so the request to seal the mere mention of it in RFP no. 72 is DENIED. 11 Separately, the Court is not convinced that Dkt. 12 438-1 at 10:3-4 contains competitively sensitive 13 information. Where it may be embarrassing or annoying to Anthropic, the Court is not 14 compelled to seal such information, (see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179), but, pursuant to 15 Rule 26, may find good cause to seal such information, (Seals v. Mitchell, No. 04-cv- 16 03764-NJV, 2011 WL 1233650, at *2 (N.D. 17 Cal. Mar. 30, 2011 (citing Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 18 2010))). At this juncture, because Publishers do not oppose, the Court will GRANT the request 19 as to 10:3-4. 20 Plaintiffs’ Seventh Highlighted portions See above. GRANTED. Set of Requests for at ECF page: 21 Production of Documents and 10 22 Things to Defendant

23 [Dkt. 438-2] 24 Defendant Anthropic Highlighted portions See above. GRANTED. PBC’s Responses and at ECF pages: 25 Objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of 17-18; and 26 Interrogatories 22-24 [Dkt. 438-3] 27 Joint Discovery Highlighted portions See ruling re Dkt. 438-1, above. This request is 1 Text to be Sealed Basis for Sealing / Court Ruling Regarding the PART. Specifically, the Court agrees that page 2 Deposition of Dario 4-5 4 line 20 — page 5 line 2 includes competitively Amodeti sensitive details related to Anthropic’s 3 [Dkt. 444-1] development of Claude. The request is 4 GRANTED as to this information.

5 The Court disagrees that page 5 lines 7-8 is competitively sensitive and, unlike with regard 6 to Dkt. 438-1, supra, the Court in its discretion DENIES the request as to 5:7-8. 7 Anthropic has not sought to maintain the 8 highlighted material on page 9 under seal. 9 Accordingly, this request is DENIED. Transcript of the Highlighted portions | The Court previously found good cause to seal 10 October 10, 2025 at ECF pages: information disclosing specific details about its Hearing Before sources of training datasets to the extent they are 1] Magistrate Judge van 22:24-23:1 not publicly known or disclosed due to their Keulen 23:5-12 competitive sensitivity. See Dkt. 378 at 5-6. 12 [Dkt. 481] 27:8-11 The Court agrees that non-public information 34:1-2 about non-commercial training data is at least similarly sensitive, and that disclosure of such Y 14 data may cause competitive harm to Anthropic. Accordingly, and because Publishers have not 2 15 opposed sealing, these requests are GRANTED. 16

17 The Clerk of Court shall maintain Dkts. 438-1, 438-2, 438-3, 444-1, and 481 under seal. 6 18 || No later than November 14, 2025, Anthropic shall file replacement redacted copies of Dkts. 438- 19 1 and 444-1 in accordance with this Order. 20 Additionally, pursuant to Anthropic’s Notice of Withdrawal (see fn. 1, above), the Clerk of 21 Court shall unseal Dkt. 456-3. 22 23 SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: November 4, 2025 25 26 Sesto va 7 SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge 28