O'Bannon, Jr. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association et al

Filing 201

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING IN PART( #177 , #178 MOTIONS TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

EDWARD O’BANNON, et al.
Plaintiffs,

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 09-3329 CW
ORDER GRANTING IN
PART MOTIONS TO
SEAL (Docket Nos.
177, 178)

v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION; ELECTRONIC ARTS
INC.; and COLLEGIATE LICENSING
COMPANY,
Defendants.
________________________________/

On June 4, 2014, non-parties Conference USA (CUSA) and the

12

Big 12 Conference each moved to seal certain trial exhibits and to

13

close the courtroom during testimony concerning those exhibits.

14

Plaintiffs oppose both motions.

15

conferences’ submissions and Plaintiffs’ opposition, the Court

16

grants the motions in part and denies them in part.

After considering the

17

DISCUSSION

18

Trial exhibits may only be sealed for compelling reasons.

19

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th

20

Cir. 2006).

21

articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual

22

findings that outweigh the general history of access and the

23

public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest

24

in understanding the judicial process.”

25

citations and alterations omitted).

26

conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and

27

the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.”

28

at 1179 (internal citations and alterations omitted).

“The party requesting the sealing order must

Id. at 1178–79 (internal

“In turn, the court must

Id.

“The mere

1

fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s

2

embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation

3

will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.”

4

Id. (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d

5

1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)).

6

reference to a “stipulation or protective order that allows a

7

party to designate certain documents as confidential.”

8

79-5(d)(1)(A).

9

Nor will the moving party’s

Civil L.R.

Here, CUSA and the Big 12 move to seal portions of certain

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

broadcast licensing agreements, related term sheets, a 2009

11

memorandum written by a conference commissioner, and a 2009 e-mail

12

exchange between conference and university administrators.

13

conferences assert that these documents are sealable because they

14

contain trade secrets and other proprietary information.

15

The conferences’ sealing requests are overbroad.

The

They seek

16

to seal hundreds of pages of licensing agreements, only some of

17

which actually contain potentially sensitive information.

18

some portions of these agreements became public months ago when

19

they were submitted as supporting exhibits in connection with

20

other motions filed in this case.

21

case no. 09-1967 (opening page of licensing agreement between CUSA

22

and CSTV Networks); Docket No. 808-15 in case no. 09-1967 (opening

23

two pages of licensing agreement between Big 12, ABC, and ESPN).

24

The conferences have not presented any compelling reasons for

25

sealing these licensing agreements in their entirety nor have they

26

identified compelling reasons for sealing any portions of the

27

memorandum or e-mail exchange.

Indeed,

See, e.g., Docket No. 811-4 in

28
2

1

That said, certain portions of the licensing agreements are

2

sealable.

3

the agreements may be sealed because their public disclosure could

4

hinder the conferences’ ability to negotiate licensing agreements

5

with broadcasters in the future.

6

refrain from referring to these dollar amounts during the trial

7

and redact these dollar amounts from any exhibits submitted to the

8

Court or displayed on the courtroom monitors.

9

information contained in the broadcasting licenses shall remain

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

unsealed.

11

In particular, the specific dollar amounts mentioned in

The parties shall therefore

All other

unsealed.

The memorandum and e-mail exchange shall also remain

12

CONCLUSION

13

For the reasons set forth above, CUSA’s motion to seal

14

(Docket No. 177) and the Big 12’s motion to seal (Docket No. 178)

15

are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

16

from referring to the sealable information contained in the

17

conferences’ licensing agreements and displaying any sealable

18

information on the courtroom monitors during the trial.

19

courtroom will not be closed during any discussion or testimony

20

concerning these exhibits.

21

The parties shall refrain

The

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

Dated: 6/10/2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
3