FEDERAL COURT, May 22 – In the
lawsuit between UMG Recordings and Sumo, many court
filings have been sealed. On May 22 Inner City Press as
part of its expanding artificial intelligence beat
coverage
filed to unseal.
U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts Judge
F. Dennis Saylor, to his credit, docketed Inner City
Press' application to unseal, and directed the defendant
to respond to it by May 29:
"A
member of the press has submitted a letter opposing the
motion to impound. (Dkt. No. [233]). Consistent with the
protective order, defendant shall, on or before May 29,
2026, file with the Court a statement of the reasons the
material should be impounded that complies with Local
Rule 7.2 and addresses the issues raised in the letter."
Here's
from
Inner City Press' request:
I
am a reporter for Inner City Press and respectfully
submit this letter in opposition to the impoundment of
the supporting papers filed at Docket 230 on May 21,
2026, in the above- captioned matter, and requests that
the Court deny the impoundment or require Defendant
Suno, Inc. to make a specific, particularized showing of
good cause before any material remains under seal.
This is not an
ordinary copyright case. UMG Recordings, Capitol
Records, and Sony Music Entertainment — three of the
largest record labels in the world — have sued Suno,
Inc., one of the leading artificial intelligence music
generation companies, for copyright infringement based
on Suno's use of recorded music to train its AI system.
The central question — whether and how AI companies may
lawfully use copyrighted works to train generative AI
models — is among the most consequential legal issues of
this era. The
answer will shape the future of the music industry, the
AI industry, and the rights of artists, composers, and
copyright holders across every creative field. Millions
of musicians, songwriters, and listeners have a direct
stake in this litigation. So does every technology
company developing AI systems trained on human creative
work. This is precisely the category of case in which
the public's First Amendment and common law right of
access to judicial records is at its zenith.
Docket
230 impounds: •
Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Amended
Complaint • Exhibit A to the Declaration of Rajan S.
Trehan • Exhibit B to the Declaration of Rajan S. Trehan
• Declaration of Daniel Delorey
These
are not peripheral discovery documents — they are the
core pleadings and supporting submissions for
Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs'
memorandum of law contains the legal arguments that will
define the scope of this litigation. The Trehan
declaration exhibits and the Delorey declaration contain
evidence about Suno's training data that goes to the
heart of the copyright infringement claims. The motion
states that this material "contains information
regarding Defendant Suno Inc.'s training data"
designated "Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only"
by Suno under the operative Protective Order. Dkt. 230
at 1.
The
motion itself reveals the critical procedural reality:
Plaintiffs "expressly reserve the right to object to
Suno's sealing the designated material." Dkt. 230 at 1.
Plaintiffs are impounding the material not because they
believe it should be sealed, but because Suno's "Highly
Confidential" designation under the protective order
compels them to seek impoundment as a precondition to
filing. This
is the same dynamic that courts have recognized as
problematic in other sealing contexts: a well- resourced
defendant uses a stipulated protective order to
designate materials as confidential, effectively forcing
the opposing party — and the public — to accept sealing
that the opposing party itself opposes. The parties
agreed that Suno would have five business days to file a
statement of good cause. See Dkt. 180 ¶ 22. That
deadline is approximately May 28-29, 2026. Inner City
Press urges the Court to hold Suno to a rigorous
standard when it files that statement.
Under First
Circuit precedent, there is a qualified First Amendment
and common law right of access to judicial records,
including documents filed in connection with substantive
motions. In re Providence Journal Co., 293 F.3d 1 (1st
Cir. 2002); FTC v. Standard Financial Management Corp.,
830 F.2d 404 (1st Cir. 1987). The First Circuit has
recognized that the presumption of access is especially
strong for documents that are "central to the
adjudicatory process." Standard Financial, 830 F.2d at
410. A
motion to amend a complaint — and the memorandum of law
and declarations supporting it — are core adjudicatory
documents. They define the claims, identify the
evidence, and shape the entire course of the litigation.
A party asserting that such documents should be
impounded must demonstrate specific, particularized harm
from disclosure — not a generic invocation of "Highly
Confidential" designations made during discovery. The question
of what data Suno used to train its AI model is not a
peripheral trade secret — it is the central factual
question in this case. Suno has made public statements
about its AI capabilities and training methodology. The
notion that the training data facts are so sensitive
that even the legal arguments about them must be hidden
from the public does not satisfy the First Circuit's
standard.
The impounded
materials address what music Suno used to train its AI
system. This information is of direct public concern for
several reasons: First,
copyright law is a public law. It defines the rights of
creators and the obligations of those who use creative
works. The public has a right to know what conduct is
being alleged and what evidence supports those
allegations. Second,
the AI training data debate is a matter of active public
policy. Congress, the Copyright Office, and regulatory
agencies worldwide are actively considering how to
address AI training data and copyright. The judicial
record in this case is important public input into that
debate. Third,
artists and musicians — whose works may be at issue —
have a direct interest in understanding what is alleged
about how their recordings were used. Impounding that
information from them is particularly inappropriate.
Inner City
Press respectfully requests that the Court: (1) Decline to
impound Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law (Dkt. 230) in its
entirety, as legal argument does not constitute
protectable confidential information and the public has
a First Amendment right to access pleadings that define
the scope of litigation;
(2) Require Defendant Suno, when it files its
statement of good cause under Local Rule 7.2 and Dkt.
180 ¶ 22, to identify with specificity which particular
facts or passages in each document would cause concrete
competitive harm if disclosed, and why that harm
outweighs the public interest in access; (3) Consider
whether targeted redaction of specific proprietary
technical details — rather than wholesale impoundment of
entire documents — would adequately protect any
legitimate confidentiality interests while preserving
public access to the legal arguments and general factual
contentions; and (4)
Make specific findings on the public docket as to any
material that remains impounded, consistent with the
First Circuit's requirement that sealing orders be
supported by specific findings. Standard Financial, 830
F.2d at 412. The
copyright questions presented in this case — whether and
how AI companies may use recorded music to train
generative models — will be decided in large part on the
factual record now being developed. The public,
including working musicians, AI developers, and every
person who interacts with AI-generated content, deserves
to understand the evidence and arguments that will
determine those questions. The First Amendment right of
access exists precisely for cases and requests such as
this.
The case is
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc. (1:24-cv-11611)
District Court, D. Massachusetts (F. Dennis Saylor IV)
Watch
this site.
