World Association of Icehockey Players Unions North America Division et al v. National Hockey League et al

Filing 219

ORDER granting 216 Letter Motion to Seal The Court having examined the documents in question, the requests for sealing and redaction identified at Dkt. No. 216 are GRANTED. The provisional sealing previously granted at Dkt. No. 185 is hereby lif ted. Plaintiffs are ordered to unseal documents other than those identified by the CHL Defendants for sealing in Dkt. No. 216, and to file redacted versions of the documents identified for redaction in Dkt. No. 216.The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Dkt. No. 216. (And as further set forth herein.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Margaret M. Garnett on 10/24/2024) (jca)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 10/24/2024 WORLD ASSOCIATION OF ICEHOCKEY PLAYERS UNIONS NORTH AMERICA DIVISION et al., 24-CV-01066 (MMG) Plaintiffs, ORDER -againstNATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE et al., Defendants. MARGARET M. GARNETT, United States District Judge: The Canadian Hockey League (“CHL”) Defendants, with Plaintiffs’ consent, seek redactions to a set of documents that were previously provisionally sealed (specifically, Exs. 182-6, 182-7, 182-11, 201-4, and 201-7), and seeks to maintain sealing for a set of documents (specifically, Exs. 182-3, 182-4, 194-1, and 201-3). See Dkt. No. 216. The CHL Defendants also seek redactions to the corresponding portions of Plaintiffs’ motion papers. See id. The Court having examined the documents in question, the requests for sealing and redaction identified at Dkt. No. 216 are GRANTED. Although “[t]he common law right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted in our nation’s history,” this right is not absolute, and courts “must balance competing considerations against” the presumption of access. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal references omitted); see also Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) (“[T]he decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”). The requested sealing and redactions are necessary to protect commercially sensitive financial and operational terms, including confidential business information that could harm a litigant’s competitive standing if filed publicly. See, e.g., CT Espresso LLC v. Lavazza Premium Coffees Corp., No. 22-cv-00377 (VSB), 2022 WL 443644, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2022); Lexington Furniture Indus., Inc. v. Lexington Co., AB, No. 19-cv-06239 (PKC), 2021 WL 1143694, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2021). Additionally, the Court finds that the proposed sealing and redactions are narrowly tailored to serve those interests. The provisional sealing previously granted at Dkt. No. 185 is hereby lifted. Plaintiffs are ordered to unseal documents other than those identified by the CHL Defendants for sealing in Dkt. No. 216, and to file redacted versions of the documents identified for redaction in Dkt. No. 216. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Dkt. No. 216. Dated: October 24, 2024 New York, New York SO ORDERED. MARGARET M. GARNETT United States District Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?