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

Background

Plaintiffs Sportvision, Inc. and SportsMedia Technology Corporation filed a letter motion asking permission to seal Exhibit A and Exhibits 1 through 7 attached to their motion for permission to file a sur-reply. Plaintiffs said Exhibit A contained extensive excerpts or detailed descriptions of confidential technical and business documents. They also said MLB Advanced Media or third-party TrackMan, Inc. had designated the documents as “Highly Confidential — Limited” or “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only.”

Plaintiffs publicly filed versions of the documents with proposed redactions and filed an unredacted copy of Exhibit A under seal. The court’s order states that plaintiffs’ request was made under the applicable sealing procedures.

Applicable standard

The court explained that courts in the Second Circuit weigh the public’s presumptive right to access judicial documents against competing interests that may justify secrecy. Recognized interests include protecting confidential business information that could harm a company’s competitive position or reveal a trade secret, as well as protecting third-party privacy. Documents containing trade secrets, confidential research and development information, marketing plans, revenue information, pricing information, and similar material may satisfy the standard for sealing.

Ruling

“For the same reasons provided at ECF No. 448,” Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo granted plaintiffs’ letter motion to seal. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 458. The excerpt provided does not identify the specific reasons stated in ECF No. 448 beyond the general sealing principles and the confidential nature of the documents described in the motion.