Live Nation Seeks Pre‑Verdict Win as Judge Orders More Trial Records Unsealed

Live Nation used a pause in witness testimony to press its latest effort to narrow the antitrust case against it before jurors can weigh the full record, filing a motion for judgment as a matter of law (1362 – embedded below) that argues the states have not presented sufficient evidence to support their claims. At the same time, Judge Arun Subramanian issued a notable ruling on trial secrecy (1368 – embedded below), ordering a broad set of materials to be publicly filed with only limited redactions for competitively sensitive pricing and payment information.

The twin developments highlight two themes that have repeatedly surfaced during the closely watched trial: Live Nation’s ongoing attempts to limit or knock out major aspects of the case before it reaches jurors, and a continuing struggle over how much of the company’s records — and third‑party submissions — should remain shielded from public view.

In its March 31 filing, Live Nation asked the court to enter judgment as a matter of law on all remaining claims under Rule 50(a), arguing that plaintiffs failed to prove core elements of their case, including relevant antitrust markets, monopoly power, anticompetitive effects, exclusionary conduct, and damages. The company further contended that the state‑law claims fail for the same reasons and renewed its challenge to damages testimony from economist Dr. Rosa Abrantes‑Metz.

RELATED: Live Nation Defense Continues Blame Shift to Rivals and Resale Market, Seeks to Eliminate Prosecution Expert Testimony

Among other things, the filing argues that plaintiffs failed to establish their proposed markets for primary ticketing services and large amphitheaters. It also contends they did not show Ticketmaster had the power to raise prices or reduce output, or that alleged threats, retaliation, conditioning, exclusive dealing, tying, or Live Nation’s Oak View Group relationship amounted to unlawful exclusionary conduct. Live Nation additionally maintains that plaintiffs failed to show consumers or venues were harmed through higher prices, degraded quality, or reduced output.

The other major development came in an April 1 order addressing a substantial volume of requests to seal or redact trial exhibits. Judge Subramanian held that documents admitted into evidence — or offered for admission — are judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. He rejected efforts to keep those materials sealed in full but allowed narrower redactions for competitively sensitive pricing, payment, and fee‑split information that had not been discussed in open court.

Subramanian also clarified that testimony or portions of documents referenced in open court will not remain sealed. He ruled that broader portions of agreements — including general obligations, contract terms, and exclusivity provisions — may not be redacted simply because the parties would prefer they stay confidential.

The order is significant because secrecy disputes have become a defining sideshow to the trial, with many records only reaching the public docket after extended clashes over sealing. The judge’s ruling does not make every line of every document public, but it does meaningfully narrow what can remain withheld and opens the door for additional unsealing requests by parties or members of the public.

Court transparency progress in Live Nation trial: declaration and 7 exhibits were entirely withheld. Inner City Press challenged it; Judge ruled today, and now at night, they have been docketed. Use in good health : ) Story later https://t.co/F0fgD5qhDb pic.twitter.com/lvtbjM2AoL

— Inner City Press (@innercitypress) April 2, 2026

Newly filed materials underscore how many industry players have been drawn into that process. A declaration filed by defense counsel on attached statements from or on behalf of AXS, Eventbrite, Paciolan, See Tickets, StubHub, Tickets.com, Tixr, and SeatGeek, (1374 – embedded below) each urging the court to keep portions of Dr. Hill’s combined primary ticketing database under seal. Those companies generally argued that event‑level data on ticket sales, fees, revenues, and payment structures could reveal confidential pricing arrangements and give competitors a roadmap for targeting customers or reverse‑engineering business terms.

Some of the submissions were unusually direct about the stakes. SeatGeek argued that disclosure could disproportionately benefit Ticketmaster because of its ability to leverage large amounts of competitor data, while Paciolan said the dataset contained granular client‑by‑client financial information that could expose negotiated pricing terms in current contracts.

Meanwhile, another dispute is brewing around Abrantes‑Metz, whose testimony has drawn sharp criticism from the bench in recent proceedings. According to courtroom updates posted by Inner City Press, Judge Subramanian told the states he wanted a serious response to challenges surrounding her testimony and ordered additional briefing, with the possibility of further proceedings.

For now, the central developments are clear: Live Nation is again asking the court to rule that the plaintiffs have not legally made their case, while the judge is forcing more of the trial record into public view.

USA v. Live Nation Entertainment Court Documents:

1362 – Live Nation’s March 31 Rule 50(a) motion/letter motion for judgement as a matter of law

1368 — April 1 order on sealing/redactions

1374 — April 2 declaration of Nicole M. Peles re sealing requests for DX-4054