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
Panini America v. Fanatics: Judge Figueredo ordered Fanatics to disclose athlete identities in discovery.
Panini America and Fanatics, particularly Fanatics, which must provide the identities of the athletes covered by the specified discovery requests. The identities may be disclosed under the protective order with an attorneys’-eyes-only designation.
What happened
In Panini America, Inc. v. Fanatics, Inc. et al., Panini asked Fanatics to identify athletes covered by two document requests. Panini alleged that Fanatics paid prominent rookie athletes to keep them from signing autograph deals with Panini.
The court found the athletes’ identities relevant because the athletes were not interchangeable and their identities could help evaluate whether the deals made economic sense. Fanatics argued that disclosure would be burdensome because its agreements contained notice and confidentiality provisions, but the court found those arguments unsupported and insufficient.
The court granted Panini’s letter motion and ordered Fanatics to provide the athlete identities. The identities may be produced under the protective order with an attorneys’-eyes-only designation, said Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo.
The detailed version
- Panini America v. Fanatics · No. 1:23-cv-06895
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 20, 2025
Background
At ECF No. 233 in Case No. 23-CV-9714, Panini moved to compel Fanatics to respond to Document Request Nos. 54 and 56 by disclosing the identities of individual athletes. Fanatics opposed the request. The issue had been discussed during conferences on October 9 and November 20, 2025.
Panini alleged in its amended complaint that Fanatics signed several National Football League and National Basketball Association rookie players to lucrative autograph agreements. Panini further alleged that Fanatics offered those athletes substantial sums to prevent Panini from obtaining their autographs for trading cards during the early years of their careers, when those cards generally are more desirable to consumers.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that the athletes’ identities were relevant to Panini’s claims. In particular, Panini alleged that Fanatics paid large sums to star athletes to prevent them from going to Panini. Because individual athletes are not interchangeable, the identities were relevant to evaluating whether the agreements made economic sense.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, discovery relevance includes information that bears on, or reasonably could lead to information bearing on, an issue in the case. Once Panini established relevance, Fanatics had the burden to show that producing the information would be unduly burdensome.
The court found that Fanatics did not meet that burden. Fanatics generally asserted that its athlete agreements contained notice and confidentiality provisions and that complying with those provisions would be extremely burdensome. But Fanatics did not provide a concrete showing explaining what notice was required, who had to receive it, or whether an athlete’s response was necessary. The court characterized these as unsupported assertions that were insufficient to block discovery of relevant evidence.
The court also stated that any confidentiality concern could be addressed by producing the athlete identities under the protective order with an attorneys’-eyes-only designation.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo granted Panini’s letter motion to compel. The opinion does not state a separate disposition for the related case beyond listing both case numbers in the caption.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.