Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 21, 2025

Fanatics Collectibles Topco, Inc. v. Panini S.P.A.

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-06895
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

Fanatics Collectibles v. Panini, Judge Figueredo granted Panini’s motion to seal confidential agreement terms and sensitive business communications.

Who this affects

Panini and the materials addressed in its sealing request, including the response and five attached letters.

What happened

In Fanatics Collectibles TopCo, Inc. v. Panini S.P.A., Panini asked to file an unredacted response and five attached letters under seal. The materials concerned a confidential production services agreement between Panini and its trading-card manufacturer, GCP.

Panini said the letters contained confidential agreement terms and sensitive business communications, and that the response contained limited sensitive communications that should be redacted. A redacted version of the response was filed publicly.

Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the motion to seal. The court relied on the confidential and commercially sensitive nature of the materials.

The detailed version

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

Case
Fanatics Collectibles Topco, Inc. v. Panini S.P.A. · No. 1:23-cv-06895
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
May 21, 2025

Background

Panini requested permission to file under seal an unredacted version of its response to ECF No. 131 and five attached letters. The letters concerned a dispute arising from a production services agreement between Panini and GCP, a trading-card manufacturer. The agreement was treated as confidential by the parties to that agreement.

Sealing request

Panini stated that the five letters referred to confidential terms of the production services agreement and contained sensitive business communications. Panini also requested redactions to limited sensitive business communications in its response. It filed proposed sealed documents electronically and filed a redacted version of the response publicly.

Ruling

The court granted the motion to seal. It stated that the exhibits referred to confidential terms of the production services agreement and contained sensitive business communications. The court cited decisions approving the sealing of commercially sensitive and confidential business information.

Disposition

The motion to seal was granted.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.