Judge Orders Unsealing of 2017 MLB Letter to Yankees Regarding Alleged Yankees Sign Stealing

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
29,641
AZ
Why is it being redacted?
If people were promised confidentiality in order to participate in an investigation or something like that, you could see a court enforcing that agreement in litigation that doesn't really concern the exact identities of the people in the letter.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,508
Portsmouth, NH
If people were promised confidentiality in order to participate in an investigation or something like that, you could see a court enforcing that agreement in litigation that doesn't really concern the exact identities of the people in the letter.
Yes, I just don't see this stuff as being an issue of national security. I don't even get why a court was involved to be 100% honest. This isn't Deepthroat. Maybe I should dig deeper, I just generally don't care as much as someone people do. Steal signs, bang trash cans, use Apple watches, knock yourself out folks.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
29,641
AZ
Yes, I just don't see this stuff as being an issue of national security. I don't even get why a court was involved to be 100% honest. This isn't Deepthroat. Maybe I should dig deeper, I just generally don't care as much as someone people do. Steal signs, bang trash cans, use Apple watches, knock yourself out folks.
Stuff gets redacted every day in lawsuits. The idea is that we are not going to invade privacy or embarrass people or whatever if they have some expectation of privacy and the law suit doesn’t concern them.

The reason there is a judge involved here is because draft kings gamblers sued the league for not being honest about the sign stealing. Their contention is that because the league has entered into a partnership with draft kings, the league has an obligation not to make misleading statements to the gambling public that could impact wagers.

Usually, litigation happens in public and so most documents are public records. But there are limits to this. If a document in litigation reveals the formula to Coca Cola it will usually be sealed from public view.

Here, MLB is arguing this document is like the secret coke formula and the judge has said no. He also however said that while the content of the letter is not private there are good reasons to not identify player names. Presumably he did this as a matter of public policy. I assume that they were provided confidentiality in exchange for coming forward and the judge is willing to honor that.

Why? Well, because he knows that if any gambler can bring a lawsuit and get access to player names and make them public, players will not cooperate in the future. Maybe you don’t care about sign stealing but this has implications way beyond sign stealing. Maybe in the future the league needs confidentiality for investigation of issues you do care about. Like the player who knows his manager bet on games but is afraid to come forward because he thinks some draft king gamblers can force the league to reveal his name in a lawsuit that has nothing to do with him. Or a rookie who thinks he hears teammates acting badly in a spring training motel but is afraid he will be branded a bad teammate if he comes forward and his name is made public.

tl;dr — this is what judges do and the fact that the issue of sign stealing doesn’t move someone’s particular needle in this case doesn’t mean there aren’t compelling reasons to protect the privacy of those who cooperate.