Olson v. Major League Baseball
466 F.Supp.3d 450
S.D.N.Y.2020Background
- Putative class action by DraftKings fantasy baseball players against MLB, MLB Advanced Media, the Houston Astros and the Boston Red Sox alleging fraud, negligence, unjust enrichment, and consumer-protection claims.
- On April 3, 2020 the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with prejudice for failure to plausibly plead actionable misrepresentations.
- Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and submitted a proposed amended complaint alleging new misrepresentations, including that Commissioner Manfred’s September 15, 2017 press release mischaracterized an investigation into the New York Yankees.
- Plaintiffs filed under seal a letter from Commissioner Manfred to the Yankees’ GM (the “Yankees Letter”), obtained in discovery; the Court referenced that letter in its Reconsideration Order.
- MLB and the Yankees sought continued sealing; plaintiffs opposed. The Court applied the common-law presumption of public access, analyzed whether the letter is a judicial document, the strength of the presumption, and competing confidentiality/privacy interests.
- Court concluded the letter is a judicial document entitled to the strongest presumption of access, found defendants’ privacy claims insufficient, directed unsealing with minimal redactions, and granted a short stay to permit an emergency appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Is the Yankees Letter a judicial document? | Letter was submitted in support of reconsideration and was relevant to the Court’s ruling. | (No real dispute) | Yes — letter influenced the Court’s decision and is a judicial document. |
| 2) What weight of presumption of public access applies? | Strong presumption because letter was submitted in connection with a dispositive motion. | MLB/Yankees argued the letter was immaterial and thus low weight. | Strongest presumption applies (dispositive motion; letter used to invoke Court’s powers). |
| 3) Do competing confidentiality/privacy interests overcome the presumption? | Public interest favors disclosure; any individual privacy can be protected by redaction. | Disclosure would harm MLB’s investigative confidentiality and Yankees’ reputation. | No — privacy interests are modest; substance already public via MLB press release; redaction for individuals suffices. |
| 4) Remedy and timing | Unseal promptly. | Request continued sealing and a short stay for emergency appeal. | Ordered unsealing with minimal redactions; allowed submission by June 15 and stayed unsealing until June 19 for potential appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mirlis v. Greer, 952 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2020) (discussing presumptive public access and balancing privacy interests)
- United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995) (standard for what constitutes a judicial document)
- United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) (scope and weight of public access presumption)
- Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (three-step access analysis: judicial document, presumption weight, competing interests)
- Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2016) (presumption weight varies with role in adjudication)
- Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019) (presumption strongest for dispositive motions)
- Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1982) (public scrutiny and accountability underpin access)
- United States v. Erie County, N.Y., 763 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2014) (public access integral to government accountability)