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

Background

The order resolved discovery disputes raised at a conference on August 11, 2025, in Case No. 23-cv-6895. Discovery is the process by which parties obtain information and documents relevant to their claims and defenses. Panini sought documents from Fanatics through several requests for production, or RFPs.

Rulings on the Discovery Requests

For RFP Nos. 46, 64, 65, 66, and 67, the court held that documents concerning Fanatics’ acquisition of the Major League Baseball license through its purchase of Topps were relevant to Panini’s Section 2 antitrust claims. The court explained that the acquisition could relate to Panini’s allegations that Fanatics obtained or attempted to obtain monopoly power through exclusive licenses. The court also found that parts of the requests were too broad, including requests for communications unrelated to the Major League Baseball license. The parties were directed to meet and confer about narrowing the requests.

The court found RFP Nos. 129, 130, and 131 appropriate. RFP No. 129 sought documents related to Panini’s allegation that Fanatics solicited and hired key Panini employees. RFP No. 130 concerned allegations that Fanatics induced employees to violate employment-agreement provisions. RFP No. 131 sought information relevant to Panini’s defense to Fanatics’ claim involving interference with prospective business relationships. The court held that the requests were appropriate even though some information might also relate to litigation in Texas, because the information was relevant to the federal actions.

For RFP Nos. 74, 75, and 82, the court noted that Fanatics had agreed to produce documents concerning OneTeam through other requests. The court directed the parties to determine whether these requests sought relevant documents that would not otherwise be produced. Panini could raise the issue again if a dispute remained.

For RFP Nos. 112 through 116, the court held that information about Fanatics’ receipt of equity or other ownership rights generally was not relevant. Information about Fanatics granting equity or ownership interests to licensors before the relevant license agreements, however, could be relevant because it might have influenced the granting of exclusive licenses. The court found the requests too broad because they sought all documents and directed the parties to discuss a possible compromise concerning Fanatics’ other business units.

For RFP Nos. 118, 121, 124, and 125, the court stated that further discussion could resolve the disputes and that they were not yet ready for court intervention. Panini could raise them again if the parties reached an impasse by the next conference.

For RFP Nos. 134 through 136 and 139, the court held that requests concerning Fanatics’ Commerce business were overbroad and did not seek information relevant to Panini’s claims. The court distinguished Fanatics’ apparel business from its trading-card business, including their producers, production processes, distribution chains, and business units.

Result

The order resolved the listed discovery disputes by identifying relevant subjects, limiting or rejecting overbroad requests, and requiring further discussions between the parties. It did not decide the merits of the underlying antitrust claims.