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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?