Jackpocket, Inc. v. Lottomatrix NY LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-05772
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Jackpocket v. Lottomatrix, Judge Liman granted a request to seal certain trial exhibits containing confidential business information.
Jackpocket, Inc.’s access to and public disclosure of specified trial exhibits was limited through redactions or full sealing; the order also affected the court docket by directing closure of docket entries 216, 217, and the previously granted motion at docket entry 214.
What happened
In Jackpocket, Inc. v. Lottomatrix NY LLC, Jackpocket asked the Southern District of New York to seal or redact certain trial exhibits for use in a confidential appendix for its pending appeal. Jackpocket said the exhibits contained sensitive business information.
Jackpocket argued that disclosure could harm its competitive position because competitors or business partners could use the information for leverage. The defendants took no position on the request.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the motion to seal substantially for the reasons Jackpocket gave and directed the Clerk of Court to close docket entries 216 and 217. The court also noted that it had previously granted Jackpocket’s separate motion to seal at docket entry 214.
The detailed version
- Jackpocket, Inc. v. Lottomatrix NY LLC · No. 1:22-cv-05772
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 8, 2023
Background
Jackpocket submitted a letter asking the court to seal certain trial exhibits that had not been filed on the court’s electronic docket. Jackpocket said the exhibits had been inadvertently omitted from the parties’ earlier joint motion to seal and that it wanted to include them in a confidential joint appendix for its pending appeal. The opinion identifies the appeal as No. 23-0012. The defendants did not take a position on Jackpocket’s request.
Request to Seal
Jackpocket asked for a narrowly tailored sealing order covering exhibits containing its confidential business information. It requested partial redactions for exhibits 1 through 5 and 9, and sealing of the entire documents identified as exhibits 6, 7, 8, and 10. The documents were identified as DX-292, DX-299, DX-302, DX-314, DX-315, DX-325, DX-326, DX-329, DX-346, and DX-352.
Jackpocket argued that the information was highly sensitive, that it took steps to keep the information private, and that disclosure could place it at a competitive disadvantage if competitors or business partners used the information. The letter recognized the strong presumption that judicial records should be publicly accessible but argued that the interest in protecting confidential business information outweighed that presumption for the identified material. Jackpocket also relied on the court’s earlier orders allowing redaction of specific business, marketing, and financial information.
Ruling
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered that the motion to seal certain trial exhibits was granted substantially for the reasons stated by Jackpocket. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions at docket entries 216 and 217. The court separately noted that Jackpocket’s earlier motion to seal at docket entry 214 had already been granted and directed the Clerk to close that docket entry as well.
This order concerns access to trial exhibits and does not decide the underlying dispute between the parties.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.