Sportvision, Inc v. MLB Advanced Media L.P.

Background

Defendant MLB Advanced Media, L.P. (MLBAM) moved to seal portions of its reply supporting a motion to prevent the plaintiffs from using TrackMan third-party discovery. MLBAM also sought to seal Exhibits B, D, and F through L filed with the reply.

MLBAM stated that the materials either had been designated, or described materials designated, “Confidential,” “Highly Confidential — Limited,” or “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the parties’ amended confidentiality agreement and protective order. MLBAM argued that the materials disclosed sensitive technical and commercial information belonging to MLBAM and non-party TrackMan, Inc., and that public disclosure could significantly harm the businesses and their competitive positions.

Court’s ruling

The order states that the court granted MLBAM’s letter motion to seal “for the same reasons” provided in an earlier docket filing, identified as ECF No. 448. The court therefore granted the application and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 451. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo.

Effect of the ruling

The ruling permits the identified portions of MLBAM’s reply and supporting exhibits to remain sealed. It protects confidential information attributed to MLBAM, the plaintiffs Sportvision, Inc. and Sportsmedia Technology Corporation, and third-party TrackMan, Inc., while limiting public access to those materials.