Jackpocket, Inc. v. Lottomatrix NY LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-05772
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jackpocket v. Lottomatrix, Judge Liman granted in part and denied in part motions to seal filings about attorneys’ fees.
Jackpocket, Inc., the defendants, and the public officials, public entities, lobbyists, and outside counsel whose names appeared in the filings.
What happened
In Jackpocket, Inc. v. Lottomatrix NY LLC, the parties asked the court to seal portions of filings connected to the defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees.
The court allowed most proposed redactions but rejected requests to hide the identities of public officials, public entities, Jackpocket’s lobbyists, and its outside counsel.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted in part and denied in part the motions and directed the parties to refile their submissions as needed by July 7, 2023.
The detailed version
- Jackpocket, Inc. v. Lottomatrix NY LLC · No. 1:22-cv-05772
- Lewis Liman
- June 28, 2023
Background
The court considered motions by Jackpocket, Inc. and the defendants to seal portions of filings submitted in connection with the defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees. The defendants are Lottomatrix NY LLC, Lottomatrix Corporation, Lottomatrix Operations Limited doing business as Jackpot.com, Lottomatrix Malta Limited, and 99Dynamics Limited.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the standard it had used in an earlier order concerning sealing materials filed in connection with the trial. Under that standard, references to innocent third parties could be redacted, but the identities of regulators and regulatory organizations could not. The court also rejected Jackpocket’s request to redact the names of its lobbyists and outside counsel.
Ruling
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted in part and denied in part the motions to seal. The court denied the motions to the extent they sought to redact the identities of public officials and public entities, and denied Jackpocket’s request to redact the names of its lobbyists and outside counsel. The court otherwise granted the motions because the proposed redactions were consistent with its December 15, 2022, order. The parties were directed to refile their submissions as necessary by July 7, 2023, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the listed docket entries.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.