Sportvision, Inc v. MLB Advanced Media L.P.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:18-cv-03025
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sportvision v. MLB Advanced Media, Magistrate Judge Figueredo granted Plaintiffs’ motions to seal confidential business information.
Sportvision, Inc. and the other Plaintiffs, MLB Advanced Media, L.P., and members of the public seeking access to the information covered by the sealing motions.
What happened
Sportvision, Inc. and the other Plaintiffs had three pending motions to seal and one renewed motion to seal in their case against MLB Advanced Media, L.P. Plaintiffs said the requested redactions would protect sensitive business information whose disclosure could harm the parties.
The court found that the information was commercially sensitive and that the interest in keeping it confidential outweighed the public’s interest in access to the sealed material. It granted all four motions to seal and directed the clerk to close those motions on the docket.
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo issued the order on November 21, 2022, applying the standard used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for sealing court records.
The detailed version
- Sportvision, Inc v. MLB Advanced Media L.P. · No. 1:18-cv-03025
- Paul Gardephe
- Nov. 21, 2022
Background
Plaintiffs had three outstanding motions to seal, filed at ECF Nos. 339, 353, and 385, and one renewed motion to seal at ECF No. 346. At the court’s direction, Plaintiffs submitted one letter consolidating their arguments for all four motions.
Plaintiffs represented that the motions sought redactions of sensitive and confidential business information whose public disclosure could harm Plaintiffs and/or Defendant.
Ruling
The court granted Plaintiffs’ motions to seal. It reasoned that courts in the Southern District of New York routinely allow parties to seal or redact commercially sensitive information to protect confidential business and financial interests. Applying the Second Circuit’s standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., the court concluded that Plaintiffs’ interest in keeping the information confidential outweighed the public’s interest in the sealed material.
The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 339, 346, 353, and 385.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.