Jackpocket, Inc. v. Lottomatrix NY LLC

Background

The court had previously denied Jackpocket’s request for a permanent injunction and other equitable relief. In a separate order, it directed the parties to confer about what material, if any, should remain under seal. Jackpocket and the defendants then filed motions asking to keep portions of court filings and evidence from public view.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial documents—materials relevant to the court’s work and useful in deciding a matter—carry a presumption of public access under the common law and the First Amendment. The court must determine whether the material is a judicial document, assess the strength of the public-access presumption, and balance that presumption against competing interests such as privacy and competitive harm. The party seeking secrecy bears the burden of showing that sealing or redaction is justified.

Because the evidence was used in connection with the case’s adjudication, the presumption of access was especially strong. Information directly affecting the court’s decision or the parties’ legal rights could be withheld only in extraordinary circumstances.

Defendants’ motion

The defendants sought to seal nonpublic business and financial information that Big Fish Games, a nonparty, had produced about its Jackpot Magic Slots application. The court found that the information was sensitive business information from a nonparty, obtained in part through a subpoena, and that the requested redactions were narrowly tailored. The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion and ordered the requested information redacted.

Jackpocket’s motion

Jackpocket’s request covered three general categories: its business, financial, and marketing information; its communications with regulators and lottery agencies; and survey data prepared by its experts for the case.

The court granted redactions for specific business, marketing, and financial information where disclosure could cause competitive harm. It declined to redact generalized information, stale information, or information particularly relevant to the court’s decision. The court gave as examples specific revenue and marketing figures that it redacted, while leaving public or generalized information and stale information unredacted.

The court denied redactions for information about Jackpocket’s dealings with regulators and lottery agencies. It found that Jackpocket had not shown that the information was confidential or commercially sensitive. The reports discussed competitors rather than Jackpocket’s own commercially sensitive information, and the information might otherwise be available under state public-records laws. The court did allow redaction of references to individuals and organizations with strong privacy interests in remaining anonymous. It did not allow the identities of regulators or regulatory organizations to be redacted.

The court also denied redactions for survey data prepared and used as evidence in this case. Jackpocket had not identified authority or extraordinary circumstances supporting secrecy for that material.

Other motions and disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to seal portions of their memorandum opposing a preliminary injunction and their letter motion to compel discovery. It also granted Jackpocket’s motion to seal portions of Michael Barone’s August 9, 2022 reply declaration, Peter Sullivan’s declaration supporting Jackpocket’s preliminary-injunction motion, and Jackpocket’s letter motion opposing the defendants’ motion to compel discovery. The court found that these requested redactions were narrowly tailored to confidential business information.

The court’s conclusion directed the clerk to close Docket Nos. 42, 54, 114, 118, 127, and 129. The opinion does not state a disposition for Docket Nos. 98 and 99, although it lists them among the outstanding motions to seal. The text also refers to Jackpocket’s motion concerning its letter opposing the motion to compel as Docket No. 119, while the conclusion directs the clerk to close Docket No. 118.