Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. National Basketball Assn.

2024 NY Slip Op 33569(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: October 7, 2024
• Docket: Index No. 653721/2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v National Basketball Assn. 2024 NY Slip Op 33569(U) October 7, 2024 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: Index No. 653721/2024 Judge: Joel M. Cohen Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 653721/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 03M -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., WARNER INDEX NO. 653721/2024 BROS. DISCOVERY, INC.,

Plaintiffs, MOTION DATE 08/26/2024

-v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION, NBA MEDIA VENTURES, LLC, NBA PROPERTIES, INC. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

HON. JOEL M. COHEN:

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 57, 62, 65 were read on this motion to SEAL .

Defendants National Basketball Association (the “NBA”), NBA Media Ventures, LLC

(“NBAMV”), and NBA Properties, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) move to seal and/or redact

the Digital Rights Agreement (NYSCEF 44) between NBAMV and nonparty Bleacher Report

that was filed in connection with Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs Turner Broadcasting

System, Inc., and Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) submit that they do not oppose this

motion (NYSCEF 65). For the following reasons, this motion is denied without prejudice to

proposing (and justifying) targeted redactions rather than complete sealing.

Pursuant to § 216.1 (a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, this Court may seal a filing

“upon a written finding of good cause, which shall specify the grounds thereof. In determining

whether good cause has been shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as

of the parties” (22 NYCRR § 216.1 [a]).

653721/2024 TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. ET AL vs. NATIONAL BASKETBALL Page 1 of 4 ASSOCIATION ET AL Motion No. 002

1 of 4 [* 1] INDEX NO. 653721/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2024

The Appellate Division has emphasized that “there is a broad presumption that the public

is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records” (Mosallem v Berenson, 76 AD3d

345, 348 [1st Dept 2010]). “Since the right [of public access to court proceedings] is of

constitutional dimension, any order denying access must be narrowly tailored to serve

compelling objectives, such as a need for secrecy that outweighs the public's right to access”

(Danco Labs., Ltd. v Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, Ltd., 274 AD2d 1, 6 [1st Dept 2000]

[emphasis added]; see also, e.g. Gryphon Dom. VI, LLC v APP Intern. Fin. Co., B.V., 28 AD3d

322, 324 [1st Dept 2006]). “Furthermore, because confidentiality is the exception and not the

rule, ‘the party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstrate compelling

circumstances to justify restricting public access'” (Maxim, Inc. v Feifer, 145 AD3d 516, 517 [1st

Dept 2016] [citations omitted]).

The Court has reviewed the Digital Rights Agreement (NYSCEF 44) and finds that

Defendants’ generalized assertions of confidentiality do not establish a compelling justification

for the complete sealing that is proposed. While portions of the Digital Rights Agreement may

include protectable confidential business information, Defendants have not made any attempt to

isolate the specific portions of those documents that genuinely require redaction under the

rigorous standards described above. Indeed, certain relevant portions of the Digital Rights

Agreement are included in Defendants’ publicly filed memorandum of law (NYSCEF 40), thus

indicating that there are portions of the agreement that do not require sealing. In view of the

admonition that sealing of court records must be “narrowly tailored to serve compelling

objectives,” (Danco, 274 AD2d at 6), Defendants will need to propose and justify targeted

redactions that satisfy the requirements of 22 NYCRR § 216 [a] and applicable case law.

653721/2024 TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. ET AL vs. NATIONAL BASKETBALL Page 2 of 4 ASSOCIATION ET AL Motion No. 002

2 of 4 [* 2] INDEX NO. 653721/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2024

Any subsequent motion seeking to address the above concerns should adhere to this

Part’s Sealing Practices and Procedures (see

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/comdiv/NY/PDFs/part3-sealing-practices.pdf),

including the requirement to submit an affidavit based on personal knowledge attesting to the

factual bases for redaction and a spreadsheet setting forth the good faith basis for each proposed

redaction.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the motion to seal or redact is DENIED without prejudice to filing a

new motion within 21 days to redact confidential portions of documents consistent with this

Decision and Order and applicable case law; it is further

ORDERED that NYSCEF Doc. 44 shall remain provisionally sealed for 21 days from

the date of the Court’s entry of this Decision and Order on NYSCEF. If the parties file a new

motion to seal or redact confidential portions of the documents consistent with this Decision and

Order within that 21-day period, the documents shall remain provisionally sealed pending

resolution of that motion. If no such motion is filed within 21 days from the entry of this

Decision and Order, the parties shall within three business days thereafter direct the County

Clerk to file unredacted/unsealed copies of the documents on NYSCEF; and it is further

ORDERED that nothing in this Decision and Order shall be construed as sealing

documents or testimony to be admitted at trial; and it is further

ORDERED that service upon the County Clerk shall be made in accordance with the

procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for

Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the “E-Filing” page on the court's website).

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

653721/2024 TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. ET AL vs. NATIONAL BASKETBALL Page 3 of 4 ASSOCIATION ET AL Motion No. 002

3 of 4 [* 3] INDEX NO. 653721/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2024

10/7/2024 DATE JOEL M. COHEN, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

653721/2024 TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. ET AL vs. NATIONAL BASKETBALL Page 4 of 4 ASSOCIATION ET AL Motion No. 002

4 of 4 [* 4]