Yankees strike out in bid to keep sign-stealing letter sealed

DETROIT — The Yankees struck out in their attempt to keep a letter from MLB commissioner Rob Manfred to general manager Brian Cashman sealed that allegedly provides details into a sign-stealing scheme.

On Thursday, the Second Circuit Appeals Court rejected the Yankees’ appeal on April 1, when the organization and team president Randy Levine filed a motion for the court to reverse its March 21 ruling to have the letter unsealed.

The letter may now be made public in the next two weeks.

The Yankees’ argument was based on a contention it would harm the organization’s reputation as part of a since-dismissed lawsuit in which it was not involved.

“We’re disappointed in the Court of Appeals decision, but we respect it,” team president Randy Levine said by phone on Thursday. “However, we think it will lead to very bad results down the road.”

The Yankees had made public their argument the organization is “not a party to this case” and MLB mistakenly produced the letter in court.

The case was a $5 million lawsuit by fantasy baseball players that used DraftKings against MLB, the Astros and Red Sox regarding the illegal sign-stealing scandals that occurred in 2017 and 2018. It was tossed last month.

The letter is said to deal with a pair of sign-stealing-related transgressions committed by the Yankees, including improperly using a dugout phone in a season before 2017, as well as referencing the fact some Yankees players stationed themselves in the team’s replay room in an attempt to steal opponents’ signs, then relayed that information to runners on second base so they could try to tell the hitter what was coming.

MLB previously released information about the use of the dugout phone and absolved the Yankees of any penalty for these actions, saying in a statement “we clarified the rules going forward to expressly prohibit such conduct.”

In the appeal, the Yankees noted the letter stemmed from an MLB investigation of the team and “such investigation was not subject to judicial review in this lawsuit.”

Source: NYPOST