Panini America, Inc. v. Fanatics, Inc. et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: October 3, 2025
• Docket: 1:23-cv-09714
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

LATHAM&WATKINS" quinn emantiel trialtawyers | new york

September 30, 2025 MEMO ENDORSED Via ECF □□□ Mh Xe . HON. VALERIEFIGUEREDO The Honorable Valerie Figueredo UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE United States District Court Magistrate Judge Dated: October 3, 2025 Southern District of New York The motion to seal is GRANTED. Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse The Clerk of Court is respectfully 500 Pearl Street directed to terminate the motion at New York, NY 10007-1312 ECF No. 212. Re: Panini America, Inc. v. Fanatics, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09714-LTS-VF (S.D.N.Y. 2023) Dear Judge Figueredo: We write on behalf of Fanatics in the above-referenced matter to request permission for the parties to file under seal unredacted versions of their forthcoming letters (including response letters) regarding issues to be addressed at the October 9, 2025 discovery conference. Specifically, portions of the parties’ letters will address Panini’s requests for documents related to a confidential, closed proceeding involving a non-party to this action. The subject matter of that proceeding is not public knowledge and may not be publicly disclosed absent the non-party’s written consent, which has not been sought or obtained. Fanatics therefore submits that good cause exists for sealing. Fanatics has conferred with Panini and understands that Panini does not oppose Fanatics’ request for sealing. In the Second Circuit, courts may exercise “discretion in determining whether good cause exists to overcome the presumption of open access to documents filed...” Geller v. Branic □□□□□ Realty Corp., 212 F.3d 734, 738 (2d Cir. 2000). In evaluating a party’s request to file under seal, courts balance the competing interests of the presumption of public access to judicial documents against “competing comparisons,” including the “privacy interests of those resisting disclosures.” GoSmile, Inc. v. Levine, 769 F. Supp. 2d 630, 649 (S.D.N.Y. March 7, 2011) (quoting Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-120 (2d Cir. 2006)). Protecting sensitive business information is among the “‘higher values’ consistently recognized by courts in this Circuit” as a “countervailing factor’ that can prevail over the presumption of public access.” CBF Industria de Gusa S/A v. AMCI Holdings, Inc., 2021 WL 4135007, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2021); see also In re Novartis & Par Antitrust Litig., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200820, at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2020) (granting motion to seal where a party agreed not to disclose the existence or content of agreements with third parties without those third parties’ consent). Pursuant to the Court’s individual rules, the parties will file their proposed sealed versions of their letters electronically through the Court’s ECF system and redacted versions of their letters on the docket.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michael B. Carlinsky /s/ Lawrence E. Buterman Michael B. Carlinsky Lawrence E. Buterman Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP Latham & Watkins LLP 295 Fifth Avenue 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10016 New York, NY 10020 michaelcarlinsky@quinnemanuel.com lawrence.buterman@lw.com (212)849-7000 (212)906-1264 Counsel for Fanatics Counsel for Fanatics