Panini America, Inc. v. Fanatics, Inc. et al.
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-09714
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
Panini America v. Fanatics: Judge Figueredo ordered Fanatics to justify sealing confidential filings under the court’s protective-order procedures.
Panini America, Inc. and Fanatics, Inc.; the order also affects the public’s access to the filed response and exhibits.
What happened
In Panini America, Inc. v. Fanatics, Inc. et al., Panini asked to file an unredacted response and five exhibits under seal because Fanatics had marked the materials confidential.
Panini did not oppose temporary sealing under the protective order but reserved the right to challenge Fanatics’ confidentiality designations. Redacted versions were filed publicly.
Judge Valerie Figueredo directed Fanatics to submit a letter explaining why sealing is appropriate under the governing appellate standard by September 24, 2026. The order did not itself make a final decision about permanent sealing.
The detailed version
- Panini America, Inc. v. Fanatics, Inc. et al. · No. 1:23-cv-09714
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 27, 2026
Background
Panini America, Inc. asked to file under seal an unredacted version of its response opposing Fanatics, Inc.’s letter motion for a discovery conference, along with five exhibits. Panini said the response and exhibits contained information that Fanatics had designated as confidential under the case’s protective order.
Panini did not oppose filing the materials under seal in accordance with that protective order, but it reserved the right to challenge Fanatics’ confidentiality designations. Panini also filed redacted versions publicly.
Ruling
The protective order placed on Fanatics the burden of explaining why the materials should remain sealed. Judge Valerie Figueredo directed Fanatics to submit a letter establishing why sealing is appropriate under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga by September 24, 2026. The order did not decide whether the materials would ultimately remain sealed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.