Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 26, 2024

World Association of Icehockey Players Unions North America Division v…

Full caption

World Association of Icehockey Players Unions North America Division v. National Hockey League

Judge
Garnett
Docket
1:24-cv-01066
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

World Association of Icehockey Players Unions North America Division v. National Hockey League — Judge Garnett granted the request to redact confidential business information.

Who this affects

The National Hockey League and Canadian Hockey League Defendants may keep the specified sensitive business information redacted from the public versions of Exhibits 1 and 3; public access to those portions is limited.

What happened

In World Association of Icehockey Players Unions North America Division v. National Hockey League, the National Hockey League and Canadian Hockey League Defendants asked to redact limited portions of two agreements filed as exhibits. The plaintiffs’ counsel consented to the proposed redactions.

The requested redactions covered sensitive financial terms and agreement expiration dates. The court said public access to court documents is important but not absolute, and found that protecting the confidential business information outweighed that presumption.

Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted the request to redact Exhibits 1 and 3 to the declaration of Martha L. Goodman. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Docket No. 137.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
World Association of Icehockey Players Unions North America Division v… · No. 1:24-cv-01066
Judge
Garnett
Date
June 26, 2024

Background

The National Hockey League and Canadian Hockey League Defendants jointly asked the court to allow redactions to two exhibits attached to the declaration of Martha L. Goodman: the 2022 NHL-CHL Agreement and a 2021 letter concerning an extension of an earlier agreement. The exhibits had been filed on the electronic docket under seal as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” The Canadian Hockey League Defendants stated that the proposed redactions covered confidential financial terms and the current agreement’s expiration date. They argued that disclosure could harm the Canadian Hockey League’s business interests, negotiations with third parties, and competitive position. Plaintiffs’ counsel consented to filing the exhibits with redactions.

Court’s Analysis

The court considered the common-law presumption that the public may access judicial documents. It explained that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against competing interests. After examining the exhibits and considering the parties’ representations, the court found that the limited redactions were necessary to protect confidential business information. The court also found that this need outweighed the presumption of public access.

Ruling

Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted the request to redact Exhibits 1 and 3 to the Goodman Declaration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Docket No. 137. The order expressly granted the request to redact; it does not separately state a disposition using the word “sealed” for the request to file the exhibits under seal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.