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,

(2d Cir. 2006) (internal references omitted); see also Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,

(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),

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2022); Lexington Furniture Indus., Inc. v. Lexington Co., AB, No. 19-cv-06239 (PKC),

, 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