SDNY COURTHOUSE, March 30 – The United States versus Live Nation trial began on March 2 with jury selection, before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Arun Subramanian. Then after a week of testimony it went on pause, and the DOJ and now several states settlement with Live Nation.
Late on March 19, Inner City Press published TicketMonster in Court, here
On March 27, amid massive sealing in the SDNY trial, Inner City Press files freedom of information / open records requests with US DOJ and states.
On March 30, the Tennessee Attorney General's Office replied that "We have received your 26 requests. Please be aware that the TN public records act is applicable only to TN citizens, i.e., only citizens of TN have the right to inspect and receive copies of public records under the TN Public Records Act. TCA 10-7-503(a)(2)(A). It appears you are a NY, not a TN, citizen." TN citizens only?
This response was cc-ed to
Kaki Carrigan and Phil Buehler at the TN AG's office -
this while the Office's Hamilton Millwee has been
questioning for the states in SDNY. Online, musicials and
residents of Mississippi, among other states, expressed
wonder at the Tennessee AG's narrow view of its
responsibilities.
Later on March 30, Inner City
Press submitted an appeal:
Re: Appeal of Denial of Public Records Request — Inner City
Press / Fair Finance Watch Re: US et al. v. Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster LLC, No. 1:24-cv-03973
(S.D.N.Y.)
Dear Records Appeals Officer, Ms. Carrigan and Mr. Buehler:
This letter constitutes a formal appeal of your March 30, 2026 denial of Inner City Press's public records request under the Tennessee Public Records Act, TCA § 10-7-505.
I. The Citizenship Restriction Is Unconstitutional As Applied to a Member of the Press
Your denial relies on TCA § 10-7-503(a)(2)(A)'s limitation of public records access to Tennessee citizens. Inner City Press respectfully submits that this restriction is unconstitutional as applied to a credentialed journalist and news organization seeking records in furtherance of coverage of a matter of significant national public interest.
First, the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedom and the right to gather information from government is not limited by state borders. The Sixth Circuit — the circuit in which Tennessee sits — has recognized that "the First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings is grounded generally in a purpose of assuring freedom of communication on matters relating to the functioning of government." Indianapolis Star v. United States, 692 F.3d 424, 429 (6th Cir. 2012). The Sixth Circuit further adheres to "a policy of openness in judicial proceedings" and has held that the public and press have a First Amendment right to attend civil proceedings. Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 695 n.11 (6th Cir. 2002). These rights belong to "the press and public" — not merely to residents of a particular state.
Second, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the United States Constitution prohibits states from denying citizens of other states access to fundamental rights without a substantial justification closely related to a legitimate state interest. The right to gather information from government — particularly records relating to ongoing federal antitrust litigation of national significance — is a fundamental right that Tennessee may not deny on the basis of state citizenship without compelling justification. No such justification exists here.
Inner City Press notes that it successfully challenged a similar citizenship restriction in the District of Delaware, obtaining a favorable ruling at the district court level in Lee v. Miner. While the Third Circuit did not affirm on appeal, that case involved a different circuit and different constitutional record. The Sixth Circuit has not ruled on this question, and Inner City Press submits that the weight of First Amendment precedent — including the Sixth Circuit's own strong openness jurisprudence — supports access here.
II. The "Overly Broad" Objection Is Without Merit
Your denial secondarily claims that Inner City Press's requests are "overly broad and insufficiently detailed." This objection is contradicted by the face of the requests themselves, which identify: specific categories of records; specific named parties (Live Nation, Ticketmaster, DOJ, the settling states); specific legal proceedings (US et al. v. Live Nation, No. 1:24-cv-03973, S.D.N.Y.); specific trial exhibits (DX-0583, PX-1282); specific witnesses (Mark Yovich, Dr. Rosa Abrantes-Metz); specific time periods; and specific subject matter categories organized into eight named subcategories.
The cases you cite — Jakes v. Sumner County Board of Education and Waller v. Bryan — involved far more generic requests with no identified proceeding, party, or document category. Inner City Press's 26 questions are each individually particularized. A records custodian is not required to conduct an open-ended search; the requests identify specific existing categories of records that the Attorney General's office necessarily possesses as a trial plaintiff in this litigation.
III. The Blanket Privilege Claim Is Premature and Procedurally Improper
Your denial asserts that "many, if not all" records are exempt under attorney-client privilege, work product, and deliberative process privilege. A blanket preemptive privilege assertion without identifying a single specific record is not a legally sufficient basis for denial under TORA. TCA § 10-7-503(a)(4) requires that any denial specify the particular exemption claimed for each record withheld. Inner City Press requests a complete exemption log identifying each withheld record, the exemption claimed, and the factual basis for the exemption.
IV. Request for Appeal Determination
Pursuant to TCA § 10-7-505, Inner City Press requests that this appeal be treated as a petition for review of the denial. Inner City Press further requests that the Office of Open Records Counsel be notified of this appeal pursuant to the TPRA's dispute resolution provisions.
Inner City Press reiterates its request for expedited treatment given the Tunney Act 60-day public comment period that will commence upon filing of the proposed Final Judgment in the above-captioned litigation, estimated within approximately two months.
Respectfully submitted,
Matthew Russell Lee
Inner City Press
Back on March 24-25, Live Nation filed two letters requesting sealing. Inner City Press filed opposition at 1:47 am, here. Midday on March 25 Judge Subramanian asked if anyone from Inner City Press was in the courtroom. Later, after live tweeting the jocular testimony of Mark Yovich of Ticketmaster, Inner City Press was ready to argue. Judge Subramanian said, Mr. Lee, I see you here, I have read your letter, we will address it." Watch this site.
More on X for Subscribers here
and Substack here
March 24 more on X for
Subscribers here
and Substack here
March 23 more on X for Subscribers here
and Substack here
March 20 more on X for Subscribers here
and Substack here.
March 19 more on that on X for Subscriber here
and Substack here
March 18 extra on "war room(s)" on X for
Subscribers here
and Substack here
On March 5, Judge
Subramanian granted Inner City Press first motion to
unseal, here
On March 6, Inner City
Press was in the courtroom at 8:30 am, and spoke to push
for further unsealing, including of demonstratives. See
new book, "TicketMonster: US v Live Nation 1," ebook,
audiobook and paperback here.
Back on March 4 Inner City Press did a vlog,
after filing to unseal, full letter
on DocumentCloud here
On March 5, granted.
More March 2 details, and the names, on X for Subscribers
here
and Substack here
The case is United States of America et al v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. et al., 24-cv-3973 (Subramanian)
