Rapaport v. Barstool Sports Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs moved for permission to file under seal the Production and Distribution Agreement for “I Am Rapaport” between Michael David Productions, Inc. and nonparty Luminary Media LLC. Under the agreement, Luminary agreed to provide production, distribution, and hosting services for the plaintiffs’ podcasts. The plaintiffs said the agreement contained information important to proving damages on their defamation and breach-of-contract claims and that it was central to the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.

Legal standard

The court explained that documents filed in connection with motions for summary judgment are subject to a strong presumption of public access. That presumption means the public generally has a right to inspect judicial documents, although courts may restrict access for sufficiently compelling reasons. Because the agreement was an essential part of the plaintiffs’ proof and related directly to the court’s decision-making, the court stated that only the most compelling reasons could justify sealing it.

The parties’ arguments

The plaintiffs argued that the agreement contained proprietary business terms whose disclosure could competitively harm Luminary. The court found that they did not identify a single provision or term whose disclosure would cause harm, and they did not submit a declaration from Luminary describing the alleged competitive injury. The court held that the plaintiffs’ unsupported, blanket assertions were insufficient to overcome the public-access presumption.

The plaintiffs also argued that public filing would force them to violate the agreement’s confidentiality clause. The court rejected that argument because the clause itself allowed disclosure when legally required or required by a valid court order. The court reasoned that the public-access requirement could therefore require disclosure without violating the agreement. It also declined to treat a private confidentiality clause as a way for contracting parties to avoid the public’s right to inspect judicial documents.

Ruling and effect

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald found that the plaintiffs had failed to overcome the strong presumption of public access. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for permission to file the agreement under seal. It also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all motions pending in the case. The opinion does not state the outcome of the underlying defamation, breach-of-contract, or summary-judgment claims.