Montgomery v. Peek Travel, Inc.
- Subramanian
- 1:25-cv-01015
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Montgomery v. Peek Travel, Judge Subramanian denied without prejudice discovery requests and denied a request to seal the motion.
The ruling directly affected the plaintiff’s effort to obtain broader discovery from Peek Travel and Peek Travel’s obligation to provide that discovery at this stage. It also made the referenced docket entries publicly viewable.
What happened
In Montgomery v. Peek Travel, Inc., the plaintiff asked the court to require Peek Travel to identify all New York entertainment venues using its platform and produce customer and purchasing information for those venues. The plaintiff said the information was relevant to claims about fees allegedly hidden until checkout.
Peek Travel had produced information for four venues but argued that producing information for hundreds of additional vendors would be too burdensome. The plaintiff argued that the requested spreadsheets and purchase-flow documents could be created from Peek Travel’s existing business records and would require limited effort.
Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion to compel without prejudice, finding the requested discovery unduly burdensome at this stage. The judge said the plaintiff could renew the request if the case survives Peek Travel’s motion to dismiss and a class is certified. He also denied the plaintiff’s motion to seal the discovery motion and directed the Clerk to remove viewing restrictions from the related docket entries.
The detailed version
- Montgomery v. Peek Travel, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-01015
- Subramanian
- Sept. 16, 2025
Background
The plaintiff filed a discovery letter motion in this putative class action. The plaintiff alleged that Peek Travel’s purchasing platform displayed ticket prices without clearly identifying additional fees until checkout, allegedly violating New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law § 25.07(4) and New York General Business Law § 349.
Discovery Requested
The plaintiff sought to compel Peek Travel to answer Interrogatory No. 4 by identifying all places of entertainment in New York State that used the Peek Purchase Platform during the class period. The plaintiff also sought documents for those venues, including data identifying ticket purchasers, fees charged, transaction counts, ticket types, and prices, as well as the purchasing flows used during the relevant period.
Peek Travel had identified and produced information for four venues named in the complaint. The plaintiff argued that Peek Travel’s production showed it could create similar spreadsheets and provide purchasing-flow documents for other New York venues from its business records. Peek Travel argued that the additional production would be unduly burdensome. The opinion states that Peek Travel also expressed concern that the plaintiff was trying to use Peek Travel as a source for additional lawsuits against its clients.
Rulings
The court denied the motion to compel without prejudice. It agreed that, at this stage, requiring Peek Travel to identify hundreds of unnamed vendors and provide customer and purchasing-flow information for every place of entertainment using its platform would be unduly burdensome. The court stated that the plaintiff may renew the application if the case survives Peek Travel’s motion to dismiss and a class is certified.
The court also denied the plaintiff’s motion to seal the motion to compel. It concluded that materials marked confidential by Peek Travel did not properly fall within the protective order’s scope. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 37, 38, 39, and 40 and remove the viewing restrictions on those entries. The order addressed discovery and sealing; it did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.