The opinion
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
June 21, 2024 DOC #:
DATE FILED:__6/26/2024
Via ECF
The Honorable Margaret M. Garnett
United Stated District Court for the Southern District of New York
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square, Room 2102
New York, NY 10007
Re: — World Association of Icehockey Players Unions North America Division, et al. v.
National Hockey League, et al., No. 24-cv-01066 (MMG)
Dear Judge Garnett:
Pursuant to Rule I(D)(3)()-(ii) of Your Honor’s Individual Rules and Practices, the
National Hockey League (“NHL”) and Canadian Hockey League (“CHL”) Defendants! submit
this joint letter requesting that the Court permit the NHL to file under seal and in redacted form on
the public docket the 2022 NHL-CHL Agreement, which is appended to the Declaration of Martha
L. Goodman (“Goodman Declaration’) as Exhibit 1, and the 2021 Letter regarding the extension
of the previous 2013 NHL-CHL Agreement, which is appended to the Goodman Declaration as
Exhibit 3. Exhibits 1 and 3 have been contemporaneously filed on ECF under seal as “Attorneys’
Eyes Only” and electronically related to this letter motion.
The CHL Defendants contend that good cause exists to redact limited portions of
Exhibits 1 and 3 as containing proprietary and commercially sensitive and confidential business
information. On June 18, 2024, counsel for the CHL Defendants and Plaintiffs conferred, and
Plaintiffs’ counsel consented to the filing of Exhibits 1 and 3 with redactions.
The CHL Defendants believe that disclosure of the confidential financial terms and
the expiration date of the current agreement redacted from Exhibits 1 and 3 would harm the CHL’s
business interests, impede its ability to negotiate with third parties, and put the CHL at a
competitive disadvantage. See, e.g., Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 18-cv-4500-GHW,
2021 WL 1222122, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021) (“Examples of commonly sealed documents
include those containing . . . pricing information.”). The CHL believes that its proposed redactions
are narrowly tailored to preserve only the proprietary and commercially sensitive information that
would most harm the CHL if made public. See, e.g., CT Espresso LLC v. Lavazza Premium
Coffees Corp., No. 1:22-CV-377-VSB, 2022 WL 443644, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2022)
(Specific, narrowly tailored portions of contracts regarding proprietary commercial information
may qualify for sealing under the case law if disclosure would harm a litigant’s ability to negotiate
The “CHL Defendants” are the CHL, the Western Hockey League (“WHL”), and all of the
clubs that play in the WHL, the Ontario Hockey League (“OHL”), and all of the clubs that
play in the OHL, and the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League (“QMJHL”), and all of the
clubs that play in the QMJHL.
The Honorable Margaret M. Garnett
with third parties, subject a party to financial harm, or harm a litigant’s competitive standing.”’)
(cleaned up). To the extent the Court has any questions or concerns about the proposed redactions,
the CHL respectfully requests an opportunity to provide additional information if needed.
Accordingly, the NHL and CHL Defendants respectfully request that the Court
grant this letter motion to file Exhibits 1 and 3 under seal and in redacted form on the public docket.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Martha L. Goodman Derek Ludwin
Martha L. Goodman Derek Ludwin
Counsel for the NHL Counsel for the CHL Defendants
cc: All counsel of record (via ECF)
The request to redact Exhibits 1 and 3 to the Declaration of Martha L. Goodman is GRANTED. The
exhibits contain confidential business information; in particular, they contain sensitive financial terms and
agreement expiration dates. 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 quotation marks omitted). After examining the exhibits, considering the
parties' representations, and considering the modest redactions requested, the Court finds that the
redactions are necessary to protect confidential business information and that necessity over-rides the
presumption in favor of public access.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Dkt. No. 137.
SO ORDERED. Date 6/26/2024
HON. T M. GARNETT
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE