2311 Racing LLC v. National Basketball Association
1:25-mc-00146
| S.D.N.Y. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- 2311 Racing LLC and Front Row Motorsports, Inc. (Plaintiffs) are NASCAR Cup Series racing teams suing NASCAR and its CEO in the Western District of North Carolina for alleged anticompetitive conduct and unlawful monopolization, in violation of the Sherman Act.
- Plaintiffs served third-party subpoenas on the NBA, NFL, and NHL (the Leagues), seeking financial and revenue-sharing information to use as benchmarks for calculating antitrust damages against NASCAR.
- The Leagues are not parties to the North Carolina antitrust action and objected to the subpoenas as burdensome and seeking confidential commercial information.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion in the Southern District of New York, seeking to compel the Leagues' compliance with the subpoenas.
- Plaintiffs contend that the Leagues' financial data is necessary for a "yardstick" analysis comparing NASCAR with other premier sports leagues purportedly operating under competitive market conditions.
- The motion to compel is denied; the SDNY court finds the requested information either not relevant, not proportional, or otherwise protected as confidential commercial information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of Leagues’ financial info | Data essential to prove but-for world damages via yardstick method | Leagues are not comparable; differences in structure/topic make data irrelevant | Plaintiffs failed to show reasonable comparability; info not relevant |
| Proportionality and burden | Data is the best evidence; no way to truthfully compare without Leagues' info | Public info is available; non-party Leagues should not bear undue burden | Requested info is not proportional; burden on non-parties outweighs need |
| Confidential commercial information | Did not contest confidentiality; claimed need for expert damages analysis | Disclosure would harm Leagues’ business interests; info is highly sensitive | Info is confidential; no substantial need shown; Court would quash even if relevant |
| Comparable precedents for compelling non-party | Third-party financial data often compelled in damages analysis | Prior compelled third parties were related to the market/conduct at issue, unlike here | Plaintiffs’ cited cases are distinguishable; no precedent for facts like these |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Fitch, Inc., 330 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2003) (motions to compel and quash subpoenas are at the court's discretion)
- John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLC, 298 F.R.D. 184 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (broad relevance standard in discovery)
- Broidy Capital Management LLC v. Benomar, 944 F.3d 436 (2d Cir. 2019) (trial court has wide latitude to determine discovery scope)
- In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 523 F. Supp. 3d 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (undue burden analysis for third-party subpoenas)
- Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 2016 WL 5478433 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (subpoena enforcement burden shifts to resisting party, but only if relevance shown) (Not included because no reporter citation)