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

Filing 223

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken APPROVING #209 STIPULATION; GRANTING IN PART #200 MOTION TO SEAL; DENYING AS MOOT #204 MOTION TO INTERVENE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2014)

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 APPROVING
STIPULATION;
GRANTING IN PART
MOTION TO SEAL;
DENYING AS MOOT
MOTION TO
INTERVENE (Docket
Nos. 200, 204,
209)

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

On June 12, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation with non-

12

party CBS Broadcasting, Inc. resolving CBS’s motion to intervene.

13

The stipulation also resolved a portion of Defendant National

14

Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) motion to seal.

15

This stipulation is approved except with respect to its

16

provisions addressing subsections 1(g) and 1(h) of the April 2010

17

“Multi-Media Agreement” between CBS, the NCAA, and Turner

18

Broadcasting System, Inc. (Exhibit 400).

19

stipulated to redacting subsections 1(g) and 1(h) in their

20

entirety from any trial exhibits, the Court finds that those

21

subsections may only be partially redacted.

22

portions of the NCAA’s motion to seal are resolved as set forth

23

below.

24
25
26

Although the parties

The remaining

DISCUSSION
The NCAA moves to seal portions of an August 2010 “Digital
Rights Agreement” (Exhibit 2218) between the NCAA and Turner.

27

Trial exhibits may only be sealed for compelling reasons.

28

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

1

Cir. 2006).

“The party requesting the sealing order must

2

articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual

3

findings that outweigh the general history of access and the

4

public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest

5

in understanding the judicial process.”

6

citations and alterations omitted).

7

conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and

8

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

9

at 1179 (internal citations and alterations omitted).

Id. at 1178–79 (internal

“In turn, the court must

“The mere

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Id.

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

11

embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

reference to a “stipulation or protective order that allows a

16

party to designate certain documents as confidential.”

17

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

18

Nor will the moving party’s

Civil L.R.

Plaintiffs have represented that the trial exhibits they

19

intend to introduce only contain excerpts from subsections

20

2.A.3.a.vi, 2.A.3.a.vii, 2.C.1.c, 3.A, 3.D, 4.B.6, and 4.B.7 of

21

the August 2010 agreement.

22

provided any compelling reasons for sealing these provisions.

23

Accordingly, Plaintiffs need not redact or excise from their trial

24

The NCAA, Turner, and CBS have not

The NCAA notes that the magistrate judge previously granted its
request to seal these provisions of the August 2010 agreement when
Plaintiffs sought to file it in support of their class certification
motion. See Case No. 09-1967, Docket No. 645, Nov. 5, 2012 Order. The
magistrate judge’s sealing order does not govern here, however, because
he relied on the “good cause” standard, id. at 2, rather than the higher
“compelling reasons” standard that governs motions to seal trial
exhibits.
1

25
26
27
28

1

2

1

exhibits any excerpts from these particular provisions of the

2

agreement.

3

quote other provisions of the agreement.

They shall, however, redact any trial exhibits that

4
5

CONCLUSION
The parties’ stipulation (Docket No. 209) is APPROVED except

6

with respect to subsections 1(g) and 1(h) of the April 2010

7

agreement.

8

redacted are the specific percentages and number of games listed

9

therein.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

The only portions of those subsections that may be

Any information that has previously been filed in the

public record may not be sealed.
The NCAA’s motion to seal the August 2010 agreement (Docket

12

No. 200) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

13

redact or excise from their trial exhibits any excerpts from this

14

agreement other than those from subsections 2.A.3.a.vi,

15

2.A.3.a.vii, 2.C.1.c, 3.A, 3.D, 4.B.6, and 4.B.7.

16
17
18

Plaintiffs must

CBS’s motion to intervene (Docket No. 204) is DENIED as moot
in light of the stipulation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated: June 17, 2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3