“[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.”
How later courts described this case
- “[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.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DOCUMENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC#
DAT ED:
WORLD ASSOCIATION OF ICEHOCKEY ee
PLAYERS UNIONS NORTH AMERICA
DIVISION et al.,
Plaintiffs, 24-CV-01066 (MMG)
-against- ORDER
NATIONAL 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.
Manan i at
United Stafes District Judge