Richardson v. The National Basketball Association
- Denise Cote
- 1:23-cv-06926
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Richardson v. National Basketball Association, Judge Cote received defendants’ request to redact sensitive information from materials supporting Richardson’s summary-judgment motion.
The defendants, the National Basketball Association and NBA Services Corp., sought redactions affecting materials filed by Richardson and information concerning nonparty NBA players, referees, and employees.
What happened
In Richardson v. National Basketball Association, the National Basketball Association and NBA Services Corp. asked the court to keep limited information redacted from materials supporting Richardson’s motion for summary judgment. Richardson had filed his legal memorandum and statement of facts entirely under seal.
The defendants sought redactions in Exhibits 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16, along with related discussions in the briefing. They said the material included nonparties’ private health information and contact information, as well as confidential health-and-safety protocols and business information.
The provided text is the defendants’ March 5, 2025 letter to Judge Denise L. Cote, not a court order. It contains the defendants’ request and legal arguments but does not state that Judge Cote granted or denied the request.
The detailed version
- Richardson v. The National Basketball Association · No. 1:23-cv-06926
- Denise Cote
- Mar. 5, 2025
Nature of the filing
The provided document is a letter-motion filed by defendants the National Basketball Association and NBA Services Corp., which the letter collectively calls the “NBA.” It asks the court to permit limited redactions in materials Richardson filed in support of his motion for summary judgment. The letter does not contain a court ruling or disposition.
Background
On February 20, 2025, Richardson filed his motion for summary judgment, including a legal memorandum and a statement of undisputed material facts with exhibits. The memorandum and statement were filed entirely under seal. In his separate sealing letter, Richardson stated that he did not believe the designated materials were truly confidential or otherwise sensitive. On February 21, 2025, the court gave the defendants until March 5 to review the materials and state their position about sealing.
Requested redactions
The defendants asked to keep redacted Exhibits 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16, as well as related discussions in Richardson’s memorandum, statement of facts, and any later briefing connected to the summary-judgment motion.
The first category involved private information about nonparties, including NBA players and referees. The defendants identified COVID-19 vaccination and infection status, medical and religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccination policies, and limited references to employees’ personal addresses or email addresses.
The second category involved confidential or proprietary business information. The defendants identified health-and-safety protocols for NBA players and referees during the 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 seasons, which they said were not publicly disseminated and reflected confidential negotiations with players’ and referees’ unions. They also identified confidential information about the NBA’s business operations.
Legal standard and requested action
The letter relies on the Second Circuit’s three-part approach for sealing judicial documents. That approach asks whether the materials are judicial documents, assesses the weight of the public’s presumptive right of access, and then balances that right against competing interests. The defendants argued that the privacy interests of nonparties and the need to protect confidential business information outweighed public access to the limited material they identified.
The defendants requested that Judge Denise L. Cote grant the sealing motion. The provided text does not say whether the court granted, denied, or otherwise ruled on that request.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.