Live Nation Attorneys Granted Limited Access to Confidential Documents in Antitrust Case
According to Billboard, the judge established a two-tiered system for handling non-public documents that the Department of Justice (DOJ) subpoenaed from Live Nation’s competitors, such as AEG Presents and SeatGeek. This ruling follows six weeks of discussions led by DOJ antitrust trial counsel Bonny Sweeney with Live Nation, which is accused of monopolistic practices in its ticketing and concert promotion operations. The negotiations focused on limiting access for the company’s in-house lawyers — executive vice president of corporate and regulatory affairs Dan Wall and senior vice president of litigation Kimberly Tobias — to sensitive information submitted by competitors.
Live Nation’s attorneys argued that Wall and Tobias need access to confidential information to adequately prepare the company’s defense. “Mr. Wall and Ms. Tobias are litigation counsel in good standing and officers of the court,” Live Nation’s outside counsel Alfred C. Pfeiffer wrote to New York federal judge Arun Subramanian. “Both have been bound by numerous protective orders and never been accused of violating those orders. Their access to confidential information in no way puts such information at risk.”
Related: Live Nation Seeks to Move DOJ Antitrust Case to Washington, D.C.
Per Billboard, while the court agreed to allow Wall and Tobias access to less sensitive confidential documents, it maintained strict conditions on how this information can be used and shared. Government lawyers, however, contended that even if Wall and Tobias pledge to use the information solely for this case, they “can’t unsee what they have seen,” as Judge Subramanian noted in a July 23 court order. This led attorneys for SeatGeek, AEG and ASM Global to file letters two days later, urging the judge to prevent Wall and Tobias from accessing any highly confidential documents produced by their companies.
SeatGeek’s attorney, William Kalema, highlighted the importance of this restriction in a letter to the court, noting that the documents submitted by SeatGeek “include documents that a company would never want to fall into the hands of any competitor.” This underscores the high stakes involved in maintaining the confidentiality of sensitive business information in the ongoing antitrust litigation against Live Nation.
According to Billboard, this ruling represents a crucial step in the DOJ’s case against Live Nation. By allowing limited access to confidential documents while safeguarding highly sensitive information, the court aims to balance the needs of Live Nation’s defense with the protection of competitive interests in the live entertainment industry.
Source: Billboard
Featured News
CVS Health Explores Potential Breakup Amid Investor Pressure: Report
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
DirecTV Acquires Dish TV, Creating 20 Million-Subscriber Powerhouse
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Kakao Mobility $54.8 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Google Offers Settlement in India’s Antitrust Case Regarding Smart TVs
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Attorney Challenges NCAA’s $2.78 Billion Settlement in Landmark Antitrust Cases
Oct 3, 2024 by
nhoch@pymnts.com
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh