Gaffney v. Muhammad Ali Enterprises LLC
- George Daniels
- 1:18-cv-08770
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Gaffney v. Muhammad Ali Enterprises LLC, Judge Daniels received defendants’ request to redact or seal commercially sensitive materials supporting a pretrial motion.
The filing concerned Muhammad Ali Enterprises LLC, Authentic Brands Group LLC, Gaffney, and public access to documents containing the defendants’ business and financial information.
What happened
In Gaffney v. Muhammad Ali Enterprises LLC, Muhammad Ali Enterprises LLC and Authentic Brands Group LLC asked the court to approve redacted public versions and sealed unredacted versions of documents supporting their motion to prevent evidence about certain alleged damages.
The requested protections covered royalty payments, royalty rates, royalty revenue, licensee identities, income statements, and an expert report. The defendants said disclosure could harm their business relationships and negotiations, and noted that a 2018 protective order addressed confidential materials.
The provided text does not clearly state the court’s disposition. It is a defendants’ letter motion addressed to Judge George B. Daniels, and the readable text contains no express grant or denial.
The detailed version
- Gaffney v. Muhammad Ali Enterprises LLC · No. 1:18-cv-08770
- George Daniels
- Dec. 21, 2023
Background
Defendants Muhammad Ali Enterprises LLC and Authentic Brands Group LLC, referred to in the filing as the “Muhammad Ali Entities,” submitted an unopposed letter motion seeking permission to file redacted and sealed versions of documents supporting Motion in Limine No. 4. That motion concerned whether Gaffney could present evidence or argument about alleged damages based on revenue or profit generated by the Muhammad Ali Entities.
Requested Redactions and Sealing
The defendants sought permission to file a redacted memorandum of law and redacted versions of several exhibits, with the unredacted versions filed under seal. The materials included documents showing payments to Gaffney, royalty revenue, an income statement, deposition materials, and an expert report. The filing identified the information as commercially sensitive, including amounts paid to Gaffney under a February 1, 2011 license agreement, royalty rates paid by licensees and to Gaffney, royalty revenue, licensee identities, and income-statement information.
Defendants’ Position
The defendants argued that confidential, competitively sensitive business and financial information can justify limited redactions or sealing despite the general presumption that judicial records should be publicly accessible. They also relied on a protective order entered on July 19, 2018, which, according to the filing, allowed parties to designate qualifying materials as confidential and required papers disclosing such information to be filed under seal. The defendants asserted that public disclosure could harm existing business relationships, future negotiations, and their competitive interests.
Ruling and Disposition
The provided text does not clearly identify a court ruling. It contains the defendants’ request for approval and a “SO ORDERED” notation appears near the beginning, but the readable text does not state whether Judge Daniels granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the request. Accordingly, no specific disposition is reported here.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.