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

S.D. New York

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

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided February 24, 2026·No. 1:23-cv-09714·Unknown

Opinion

SCHILLER es FLEXNER February 20, 2026 Via ECF The Honorable Valerie Figueredo United States District Court Magistrate Judge Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007-1312 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 Panini America, Inc. (“Panini”) in the above-referenced matter to request permission to file under seal an unredacted version of Panini’s Motion to Quash the non- party subpoena issued by Fanatics to Citigroup or alternatively for a Protective Order (the “Motion to Quash”). Specifically, the Motion to Quash contains extremely commercially sensitive information related to the potential sale and marketing of Panini S.p.A. that could be used by competitors to interfere with Panini S.p.A.’s future business plans or potential sales transaction. Panini submits that good cause exists for sealing. In the Second Circuit, courts may exercise “considerable discretion in determining whether good cause exists to overcome the presumption of open access to documents filed... .” Geller v. Branic Int’l. Realty Corp., 212 F.3d 734, 738 (2d Cir. 2000). In evaluating a party’s request to file under seal, courts balance the “common law presumption of access” to judicial documents against “countervailing factors” including “the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.” Flores v. City of New York, 2025 WL 2998058, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2025) (quoting Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006)). Documents may be sealed if the court finds it is “essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” □□□ When weighing privacy interests, courts should “assess the nature and degree of injury, paying heed to the sensitivity of the information and the subject but also to how the person seeking access intends to use the information.” /d. at *3 (quotations omitted). “Business secrecy” is a well- established factor “that can outweigh the presumption of public access ... .” See, e.g., Lexington Furniture Indus., Inc. v. Lexington Co., AB, 2021 WL 1143694, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2021) (citing United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995)) (sealing exhibits “contain[ing] specific, non-public financial statements, sales information and customer lists . . . [that] could advantage [the] [m]ovants’ competitors and harm their businesses”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G) (“The court may, for good cause, issue an order . . . requiring . . . confidential . . . commercial information not be revealed... .”). Accordingly, Panini respectfully submits that good cause exists to file under seal the Motion to Quash. Pursuant to the Court’s individual rules, Panini is filing proposed sealed

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP COS Lyidenn Yarde Naw Yoark NY 10007 ! (4) 212 AAR P2000 1 (FF) 271? AAR Ivana Acflin cam

documents electronically through the Court’s ECF system. Panini is also filing a redacted version of the Motion to Quash publicly on the docket.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stuart Singer David Boies Eric Brenner BOlES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 dboies@bsfllp.com ND 0 R SED ebrenner@bsfllp.com MEMO E Stuart H. Singer* \ M ( Sabria A. McElroy* LN SAKA | BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP TONVAEEE AQUEREO ~~ 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 N. RIE FIGUER ? □□ STATES MRGISTRATE JUDGE Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Dated: February 24, 2026 Telephone: (954) 356-0011 ssinger@bsfllp.com The motion to seal is GRANTED. The Clerk of smcelroy@bsfllp.com Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 280. The Clerk of Court is James P. Denvir* further directed to maintain the viewing restrictions Richard A. Feinstein* at ECF No. 282. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Ave, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 jdenvir@bsfllp.com rfeinstein@bsfllp.com Counsel for Panini America, Inc. *pro hac vice

ce: All Counsel of Record (by ECF)

Page 2 of 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SCHILLER es FLEXNER February 20, 2026 Via ECF The Honorable Valerie Figueredo United States District Court Magistrate Judge Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007-1312 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 Panini America, Inc. (“Panini”) in the above-referenced matter to request permission to file under seal an unredacted version of Panini’s Motion to Quash the non- party subpoena issued by Fanatics to Citigroup or alternatively for a Protective Order (the “Motion to Quash”). Specifically, the Motion to Quash contains extremely commercially sensitive information related to the potential sale and marketing of Panini S.p.A. that could be used by competitors to interfere with Panini S.p.A.’s future business plans or potential sales transaction. Panini submits that good cause exists for sealing. In the Second Circuit, courts may exercise “considerable discretion in determining whether good cause exists to overcome the presumption of open access to documents filed... .” Geller v. Branic Int’l. Realty Corp., 212 F.3d 734, 738 (2d Cir. 2000). In evaluating a party’s request to file under seal, courts balance the “common law presumption of access” to judicial documents against “countervailing factors” including “the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.” Flores v. City of New York, 2025 WL 2998058, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2025) (quoting Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006)). Documents may be sealed if the court finds it is “essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” □□□ When weighing privacy interests, courts should “assess the nature and degree of injury, paying heed to the sensitivity of the information and the subject but also to how the person seeking access intends to use the information.” /d. at *3 (quotations omitted). “Business secrecy” is a well- established factor “that can outweigh the presumption of public access ... .” See, e.g., Lexington Furniture Indus., Inc. v. Lexington Co., AB, 2021 WL 1143694, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2021) (citing United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995)) (sealing exhibits “contain[ing] specific, non-public financial statements, sales information and customer lists . . . [that] could advantage [the] [m]ovants’ competitors and harm their businesses”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G) (“The court may, for good cause, issue an order . . . requiring . . . confidential . . . commercial information not be revealed... .”). Accordingly, Panini respectfully submits that good cause exists to file under seal the Motion to Quash. Pursuant to the Court’s individual rules, Panini is filing proposed sealed

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP COS Lyidenn Yarde Naw Yoark NY 10007 ! (4) 212 AAR P2000 1 (FF) 271? AAR Ivana Acflin cam

documents electronically through the Court’s ECF system. Panini is also filing a redacted version of the Motion to Quash publicly on the docket.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stuart Singer David Boies Eric Brenner BOlES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 dboies@bsfllp.com ND 0 R SED ebrenner@bsfllp.com MEMO E Stuart H. Singer* \ M ( Sabria A. McElroy* LN SAKA | BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP TONVAEEE AQUEREO ~~ 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 N. RIE FIGUER ? □□ STATES MRGISTRATE JUDGE Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Dated: February 24, 2026 Telephone: (954) 356-0011 ssinger@bsfllp.com The motion to seal is GRANTED. The Clerk of smcelroy@bsfllp.com Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 280. The Clerk of Court is James P. Denvir* further directed to maintain the viewing restrictions Richard A. Feinstein* at ECF No. 282. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Ave, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 jdenvir@bsfllp.com rfeinstein@bsfllp.com Counsel for Panini America, Inc. *pro hac vice

ce: All Counsel of Record (by ECF)

Page 2 of 2

Panini America, Inc. v. Fanatics, Inc. et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2026).

Pincite

Panini America, Inc. v. Fanatics, Inc. et al. (Panini America, Inc. v. Fanatics, Inc. et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related