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, Inc. v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P., Judge Figueredo granted three 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 filings.
What happened
Sportvision, Inc. v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P. involved three requests to keep information from the public in filings connected to Sportvision’s pending request to compel discovery and MLB Advanced Media’s opposition.
The parties said the information included sensitive financial and business records, third-party agreement details, and technical and commercial information. They argued that public disclosure could harm the parties or their businesses.
Judge Valerie Figueredo granted all three motions to seal under the standard used by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and directed the Clerk to terminate the motions. The order did not decide the underlying discovery dispute.
The detailed version
- Sportvision, Inc v. MLB Advanced Media L.P. · No. 1:18-cv-03025
- Paul Gardephe
- Dec. 13, 2022
Background
The court considered three outstanding letter motions to seal, filed at ECF Nos. 408, 414, and 418. The requests concerned information in Plaintiffs’ pending letter motion to compel and its exhibits, as well as Defendant’s opposition to that motion. Redacted versions of the filings were submitted at the same time.
Parties’ Position
The parties represented that the requested redactions or sealing would protect sensitive and confidential business information. This included financial information and records, details of agreements with third parties, and technical and commercial aspects of Defendant’s business. The parties stated that public disclosure could harm Plaintiffs, Defendant, or their businesses and competitors.
Court’s Analysis
The court noted that courts in the Southern District of New York routinely permit sealing or redaction of commercially sensitive information to protect confidential business interests and financial information. Applying the standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006), the court found the requests appropriate.
Disposition
The three motions to seal were granted. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 408, 414, and 418. This order addressed sealing only; the opinion did not resolve the underlying motion to compel or opposition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.