Sportvision, Inc v. MLB Advanced Media L.P.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:18-cv-03025
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Sportvision v. MLB Advanced Media, Judge Figueredo denied sanctions for late disclosure of Trackman documents in discovery.
MLB Advanced Media, LP’s request to exclude Sportvision’s Trackman deposition and documents was denied; Sportvision, Inc. and SportsMEDIA Technology Corporation may continue to use that evidence, subject to later proceedings in the case.
What happened
In Sportvision, Inc. and SportsMEDIA Technology Corporation v. MLB Advanced Media, LP, Sportvision obtained documents from Trackman, Inc. through a subpoena but did not timely give MLB Advanced Media all 26 documents. The parties’ discovery agreement required sharing subpoenaed materials within five business days.
MLB Advanced Media asked the court to prevent Sportvision from using the Trackman documents and related witness deposition. It argued that the late disclosure harmed its ability to question Trackman’s witness. Sportvision described the failure as inadvertent and argued that MLB Advanced Media already had similar information and could address any remaining issues through additional discovery.
Judge Valerie Figueredo denied MLB Advanced Media’s sanctions motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. She concluded that the late disclosure was not shown to have prejudiced MLB Advanced Media, that the evidence was important to Sportvision’s claims, and that a less severe remedy—such as reopening the deposition—was feasible.
The detailed version
- Sportvision, Inc v. MLB Advanced Media L.P. · No. 1:18-cv-03025
- Paul Gardephe
- Oct. 12, 2023
Background
This patent-infringement and breach-of-contract case concerns MLB Advanced Media’s pitch-tracking technology. Sportvision alleges that MLB Advanced Media replaced Sportvision’s PITCH/fx system with a system involving Trackman, Inc., and that MLB Advanced Media gave Trackman Sportvision’s confidential and proprietary information.
Sportvision subpoenaed Trackman for information about Trackman’s interactions with MLB Advanced Media. Trackman ultimately produced 52 documents in seven productions between November 3, 2020, and February 10, 2022. Under the parties’ Joint Discovery Protocol, the parties had to provide each other with materials received through third-party subpoenas within five business days.
Sportvision gave MLB Advanced Media the documents from Trackman’s first four productions, totaling 26 documents, but did not timely provide the 26 documents from the final three productions. At a Trackman witness’s April 8, 2022 deposition, Sportvision used two documents that had not previously been provided to MLB Advanced Media. In March 2023, while expert discovery was underway, MLB Advanced Media discovered that Sportvision’s expert report cited three Trackman documents outside the range of documents previously produced to MLB Advanced Media. Sportvision then produced the 26 documents and described the failure as an inadvertent production error.
Sanctions Motion
MLB Advanced Media moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1). It asked the court to bar Sportvision from using the Trackman witness’s deposition and all Trackman documents obtained through Sportvision’s subpoena in motions, expert reports, hearings, or trial. MLB Advanced Media argued that the late disclosure prejudiced it.
Sportvision argued that the delay was harmless because MLB Advanced Media had similar information in other documents before the Trackman deposition. It also argued that barring the entire deposition and all Trackman documents would be excessively severe and that a continuance or reopened deposition would be a sufficient alternative.
Court’s Analysis
Rule 37(c)(1) generally prevents a party from using information that it failed to disclose as required by the discovery rules unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless. The court explained, however, that sanctions are discretionary and that preclusion—preventing the party from using the evidence—is a harsh remedy that should be imposed rarely.
The court considered the reasons for the delay, the importance of the evidence, the prejudice to MLB Advanced Media, and whether a continuance was possible. It found that Sportvision had not provided a substantial justification for the delay, but described the failure as inadvertent and found no indication that it was willful or in bad faith.
The court concluded that MLB Advanced Media was not prejudiced by the late disclosure. MLB Advanced Media received the documents during expert discovery, before summary-judgment briefing or trial, and could use them in rebuttal expert reports or expert depositions. A short continuance could also allow MLB Advanced Media to reopen the Trackman deposition.
The court also noted that MLB Advanced Media already possessed other documents containing similarly detailed information about Trackman’s camera-calibration process. Although three withheld documents concerned that key issue, MLB Advanced Media did not ask the Trackman witness any questions about camera calibration despite having related information before the deposition. In addition, two documents had been available on the court docket before the deposition, even though Sportvision had not identified them as documents obtained through its Trackman subpoena.
Finally, the court found that the requested sanction was disproportionate. Trackman’s documents and testimony were important to Sportvision’s claims, and Sportvision’s expert relied on Trackman information. Because discovery had not closed and no trial date had been set, reopening the deposition was a feasible, less severe alternative.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Figueredo denied MLB Advanced Media’s motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. The clerk was directed to terminate the letter motion at ECF No. 437.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.