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

Filing 223


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 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

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?