Sportvision, Inc v. MLB Advanced Media L.P.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 28, 2025
Docket1:18-cv-03025
StatusUnknown

This text of Sportvision, Inc v. MLB Advanced Media L.P. (Sportvision, Inc v. MLB Advanced Media L.P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sportvision, Inc v. MLB Advanced Media L.P., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

GOLDMAN ISMAIL TOMASELLI Alan L an Littmann BRENNAN & 312.881.5969 BAUM LLP alittmann@goldmanismail.com

January 27, 2025 The Honorable Valerie Figueredo United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Sportvision, Inc. et al. v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P., No. 18-cv-03025-PGG-VF Dear Judge Figueredo: Pursuant to Rule I(g) of Your Honor’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, and MLBAM’s Request for Sealing (ECF No. 502), which this Court memo-endorsed on December 30, 2024, MLBAM submits this letter motion respectfully requesting that the Court permanently seal Exhibit B to MLBAM’s Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Memo Endorsement Order of Plaintiffs’ Letter Seeking a Partial Lift of the Stay. Documents may be sealed in whole or in part where it “is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Jn re Search Warrant Dated Oct. 13, 2023, No. 23MISC389JLRVF, 2023 WL 6938292, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2023) (quoting Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted). 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 “countervailing factors,” including the “privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119-20 (internal quotations omitted); see also Ramirez v. Temin & Co., Inc., No. 20 CIV. 6258 (ER), 2020 WL 6781222, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2020) (“the presumption of access may be outweighed when there are considerations of the need to conceal confidential business information that could harm a defendant’s competitive position or reveal a trade secret.”). 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., No. 13-cv-2581-PKC-JLC, 2021 WL 4135007, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2021). Documents containing “revenue” and “pricing information” are among the types of documents frequently found to satisfy the requirements for sealing. See Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. v.

Chicago 200 South Wacker, 22nd Floor, Chicago, IL 60606 Dallas 7557 Rambler Road, Suite 1450, Dallas, TX 75231 Santa Monica 100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1760, Santa Monica, CA 90401 goldmanismail.com

January 27, 2025 Page 2 Amazon.com, Inc., 1:18-CV-00549 (BKS/CFH), 2019 WL 2918026, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. June 18, 2019 (internal quotations omitted); Cumberland Packing Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 184 F.R.D. 504, 506 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (“Documents falling into categories commonly sealed are those containing trade secrets, confidential research and development information, marketing plans, revenue information, pricing information, and the like.”). MLBAM seeks to permanently seal Exhibit B to MLBAM’s Objections (ECF No. 500). Exhibit B is an expert report submitted by Plaintiffs’ damages expert, Mr. Philip Green. Mr. Green’s report describes highly sensitive financial information from both Plaintiffs and MLBAM, including revenue, pricing, and cost data, as well as details about contracts and other information that Plaintiffs have alleged describes their trade secrets. (Littmann Decl. § 5.) The report itself has been designated as “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only” and the documents that it relies on are predominantly marked in the same manner. (/d. J 6.) The report also includes multiple excerpts of these documents. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court consider and grant this letter motion to seal. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Alan Littmann Alan E. Littmann Doug Winnard Allyson Julien Sam Schoenburg GOLDMAN ISMAIL TOMASELLI BRENNAN & BAUM LLP 200 South Wacker Dr., 22nd Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 881-5994 MEMO ENDORSED Facsimile: (312) 380-7007 □□ Email: alittmann@goldmanismail.com \\ N) \ LM Xx Email: ajulien@goldmanismail.com UW | Email: dwinnard@goldmanismail.com TON VALERIE FIGUEREDO Email: sschoenburg@goldmanismail.com UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dated: 1/28/25 Joelle A. Milov COWAN, LIEBOWITZ & LATMAN, P.C. motion to seal is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is 114 West 47th Street to terminate the motion at ECF No. 507 and to New York, NY 10036-1525 the seal at ECF No. 500. Telephone: (212) 790-9204 Facsimile: (212) 575-0671 Email: jam@cll.com Attorneys for Defendant MLB Advanced Media, L.P.

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

Related

Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
435 F.3d 110 (Second Circuit, 2006)
Cumberland Packing Corp. v. Monsanto Co.
184 F.R.D. 504 (E.D. New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sportvision, Inc v. MLB Advanced Media L.P., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sportvision-inc-v-mlb-advanced-media-lp-nysd-2025.