Panini America v. Fanatics
Panini America, Inc. v. Fanatics, Inc. et al; Fanatics Collectibles Topco, Inc. v. Panini S.P.A.
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-06895
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Panini America v. Fanatics, Magistrate Judge Figueredo granted Panini’s discovery motion for three of twelve requested custodians.
Panini obtained an order requiring Fanatics to add Omar Wilkes, Elizabeth Galaviz, and Brian Bayne as discovery custodians. Fanatics must search those custodians’ files as directed by the order.
What happened
In Panini America, Inc. v. Fanatics, Inc. et al., Panini asked Fanatics to add twelve people whose electronically stored information should be searched during discovery. Fanatics opposed the request.
The court said a party generally may choose the custodians most likely to have relevant information unless that choice is unreasonable or produces inadequate discovery. Panini showed that three requested custodians were reasonably likely to have unique, relevant evidence that Fanatics’s proposed searches would not capture.
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo granted Panini’s letter motion only as to Omar Wilkes, Elizabeth Galaviz, and Brian Bayne, and directed Fanatics to add those three individuals as custodians.
The detailed version
- Panini America v. Fanatics · No. 1:23-cv-06895
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 13, 2025
Background
Panini America, Inc. filed a letter motion asking the court to compel Fanatics, Inc. to add twelve electronic-discovery custodians. A custodian is a person whose files are searched for potentially relevant electronically stored information. Fanatics opposed the request, arguing that Panini had not shown that Fanatics’s proposed list was manifestly unreasonable.
The court held a conference about the dispute on November 7, 2025. It explained that, absent an agreement, the responding party generally may select the custodians most likely to possess responsive information. The requesting party generally must show that the documents sought are relevant, while the responding party must justify limits on discovery of relevant material.
The court’s analysis
Panini argued that searching all twelve proposed custodians’ files was reasonably likely to produce unique, relevant evidence. Five of the proposed custodians appeared in Fanatics’s initial disclosures, but the court stated that inclusion in those disclosures alone did not establish that the people had unique, relevant, and noncumulative evidence. Fanatics had also agreed to search and collect files from other custodians that it believed would capture relevant communications and documents associated with Gordon, Cherian, Yoo, Luraschi, and Boyce. Given the limited document production so far, the court found it was not readily apparent that those five people had unique, relevant documents that the proposed searches would miss.
The court found that Panini had shown that Omar Wilkes, Elizabeth Galaviz, and Brian Bayne were reasonably likely to have unique, relevant evidence. Panini had already received documents from Wilkes on which he was the only person copied. Bayne and Galaviz were former Panini employees who were likely to have unique information concerning Panini’s allegations that Fanatics recruited employees and obtained trade secrets, as well as communications about athlete deals relevant to Panini’s allegations concerning athlete lockups.
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo ordered that Panini’s letter motion was granted but only as to three custodians: Omar Wilkes, Elizabeth Galaviz, and Brian Bayne. Fanatics was directed to add those three individuals as custodians. The opinion does not decide the underlying allegations about employees, trade secrets, or athlete deals.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.