Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 8, 2025

Jacobson v. Live Nation Entertainment

Full caption

James R. Jacobson; Abraham Leifer; Tamara Stevens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.; Ticketmaster LLC

Judge
Subramanian
Docket
1:24-cv-06538
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscoveryArbitration
In one sentence

In Jacobson v. Live Nation, Judge Subramanian granted discovery about arbitration neutrality and denied without prejudice the arbitration and stay motions.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants in the two related actions are affected. The order requires discovery before the court decides whether the disputes must proceed in arbitration and whether the actions should be stayed.

What happened

In Jacobson v. Live Nation, the plaintiffs asked for discovery before the court decided the defendants’ motions to compel arbitration. The parties agreed that those motions are evaluated similarly to summary-judgment motions, which can require discovery to identify genuine factual disputes.

The court found open questions about the possible partiality of the New Era arbitration platform and ordered discovery about New Era’s neutrals and its relationships with Latham & Watkins and the defendants. The discovery must be completed within 90 days, and the September 23, 2025 hearing remained scheduled unless the parties jointly asked to cancel it.

Judge Subramanian denied the motions to compel arbitration and to stay the actions without prejudice, and granted the motions for discovery. After discovery ends, the defendants may renew their arbitration motions by letter, followed by briefing from both sides.

The detailed version

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

Case
Jacobson v. Live Nation Entertainment · No. 1:24-cv-06538
Judge
Subramanian
Date
Sept. 8, 2025

Background

The plaintiffs requested discovery concerning the defendants’ motions to compel arbitration in the two related actions. A motion to compel arbitration asks the court to require the parties to resolve their dispute through arbitration rather than in court. The parties agreed that the court evaluates such a motion under a standard similar to summary judgment, a procedure for deciding a case when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact. The court explained that discovery may be needed to uncover facts relevant to that decision.

Discovery Order

The court identified unresolved questions concerning the possible partiality of the New Era arbitration platform. It cited concerns described in Heckman v. Live Nation, but did not decide whether the platform was partial. The court granted discovery into New Era’s neutrals and New Era’s relationship with Latham & Watkins and with the defendants. The discovery must conclude within 90 days. The parties were directed to meet and discuss the scope of discovery before the scheduled September 23, 2025 hearing; the court would resolve any discovery disputes at that hearing.

Rulings and Next Steps

The court denied without prejudice the pending motions to compel arbitration and to stay the actions. It granted the motions for discovery. After the 90-day discovery period, the defendants may renew their motions to compel arbitration through a short letter motion. The plaintiffs will then have 14 days to submit briefs explaining how discovery affected the arbitration issues, and the defendants will have 14 days to respond. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate specified docket entries in both actions. The order did not decide the ultimate question whether arbitration is required.

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.