Gill v. National Football League
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-01032
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gill v. National Football League, Judge Engelmayer granted the parties’ request to seal an unredacted exhibit containing proprietary information.
The National Football League, its affiliates and licensees, and the public’s access to the unredacted exhibit were affected. The redacted version remained publicly filed.
What happened
Gill v. National Football League concerns the parties’ request to keep an unredacted contract exhibit from public view. The exhibit was described as containing proprietary and trade information belonging to the National Football League, its affiliates, and licensees.
The plaintiff publicly filed a redacted version of the exhibit and submitted the unredacted version under seal. The parties said disclosure could harm the NFL and give competitors access to proprietary information.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the request and ordered the unredacted version sealed. The order did not provide additional reasoning beyond the court’s approval.
The detailed version
- Gill v. National Football League · No. 1:21-cv-01032
- Paul Engelmayer
- July 1, 2022
Background
The parties asked the court to seal the unredacted version of Exhibit A to the declaration of Karl Kronenberger. The exhibit was a contract containing what the parties described as proprietary and trade information of the National Football League, its affiliates, and licensees.
A redacted version had been publicly filed as ECF No. 89-1. The parties stated that the unredacted version was designated “Highly Confidential” and that disclosure could be detrimental to the NFL and provide competitors with proprietary information. They also cited prior orders allowing redactions of similar contracts and other confidential proprietary information.
Ruling
The court granted the parties’ request to seal the unredacted version of ECF No. 89-1. The order was entered by United States District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on July 1, 2022. The opinion text does not give further explanation for the ruling.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.