JENKINS et al v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION et al

Filing 372

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/30/18. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/30/2018)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6

IN RE: NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION ATHLETIC
GRANT-IN-AID CAP ANTITRUST
LITIGATION

7

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO
SEAL

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

8

Case Nos. 14-md-02541-CW
14-cv-02758-CW

ALL ACTIONS

(Dkt. Nos. 654, 655, 702,
713, 749)

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9
10

Now pending are five administrative motions for leave to

11

file under seal various documents and information submitted in

12

connection with the motions for summary judgment and to exclude

13

proposed expert testimony.

14

designated the information as confidential (“designating

15

parties”) have filed, in the public record, declarations in

16

support of the motions to seal.

17

For the following reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in

18

part the motions for leave to file under seal.

19

The parties and non-parties that

See Civil L.R. 79-5(e), (e)(1).

A party seeking to file documents under seal must establish

20

that the documents, “or portions thereof, are privileged,

21

protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection

22

under the law” and must narrowly tailor the request “to seek

23

sealing only of sealable material.”

24

considering sealing requests, “a strong presumption in favor of

25

access is the starting point.”

26

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)(internal quotation

27

marks omitted).

28

dispositive motions bear the burden of articulating “compelling

Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

In

Kamakana v. City & Cty. of

Parties seeking to seal documents relating to

reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the

2

general history of access and the public policies favoring

3

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the

4

judicial process.”

5

citations omitted).

6

best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.”

7

Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir.

8

2016) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

9
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

Court “must conscientiously balance the competing interests of

Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks and
“What constitutes a compelling reason is
Ctr. for

The

10

the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial

11

records secret.”

12

marks and alterations omitted).

13

production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment,

14

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not,

15

without more, compel the court to seal its records.”

16

will the moving party’s reference to a “stipulation or protective

17

order that allows a party to designate certain documents as

18

confidential.”

19

Kamekana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotation
“The mere fact that the

Id.

Nor

Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A).

In general, the parties and nonparties seeking to maintain

20

documents under seal in connection with the filed motions have

21

shown compelling reasons to seal some of the terms of media

22

agreements and other confidential contracts and financial

23

information.

24

tangentially relevant to the dispositive motions.

25

however, a few exceptions.

26

follows.

27
28

1.

Additionally, much of this information is only
There are,

Accordingly, the Court rules as

The designating parties did not file declarations in

support of sealing all material originally included in the
2

1

motions to seal (and redacted from public filings) by the moving

2

parties.

3

all information for which no declaration in support of sealing

4

was provided.

5

2.

The Court denies the motions to seal with respect to

In some declarations and briefs in support of sealing,

the designating parties publicly identified the existence of a

7

contract, the name of the contract, or the parties to the

8

contract.

9
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

Court denies leave to seal that public information, although the

10

portions of the contracts that remain confidential may be filed

11

under seal.

12

3.

Where information has been publicly disclosed, the

Defendant The Big 12 Conference, Inc., seeks to

13

maintain under seal one portion of the deposition testimony of

14

Gregory L. Fenves that does not contain any confidential

15

information.

16

MSJ, at 37:24-28 (quoting same); Kessler Decl. in Opp. to Defs.

17

MSJ ¶ 8 (referring to same).

18

this information.

19

the Bates Number of a document produced by The Big 12 that is

20

referred to in Plaintiffs’ opposition brief.

21

MSJ, at 24:16-17.

22

remainder of the information that The Big 12 seeks to maintain

23

under seal, for which it has shown compelling reasons.

24

4.

See Fenves Depo. at 38:21-39:1; Pls. Opp. to Defs.

The Court denies the motion to seal

The Court likewise denies the motion to seal

Pls. Opp. to Defs.

The Court grants the motion to seal the

The Court grants the remainder of all pending motions

25

to seal.

26

the sealed materials may remain under seal if introduced at

27

trial.

28

5.

The Court does not rule at this time on whether any of

Within seven days after the filing of this order, the
3

moving parties shall file the following versions of all documents

2

for which any portion of the motion to seal was denied:

3

(1) public copies redacting only the material for which the

4

designating party filed a declaration in support of sealing and

5

this Court granted the motion to file under seal; and (2) revised

6

sealed copies, with highlighting showing the revised redactions.

7

The moving parties need not re-file documents for which the scope

8

of the material filed under seal has not changed from that

9
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

requested in the motion for leave to file under seal.

10

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part and

11

denies in part the motions for leave to file under seal (Docket

12

Nos. 654, 655, 702, 713, 749).

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: March 30, 2018
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4