reviewing standards to file under seal borne by party seeking sealing in evaluating 19 nonparty intervenor’s motion to unseal document
How later courts described this case
- reviewing standards to file under seal borne by party seeking sealing in evaluating 19 nonparty intervenor’s motion to unseal document
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 MATT JONES, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04486-BLF
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART THE NEW YORK
9 v. TIMES CO.’S MOTION TO UNSEAL
10 PGA TOUR, INC., Re: ECF No. 460
Defendant.
11
12
13 Presently before the Court is non-party The New York Times Company’s (“NYT”) motion
14 to unseal certain judicial records in this action (the “Motion to Unseal”). See Mot., ECF No. 460.
15 The Motion to Unseal concerns records related to the Court’s jurisdiction over the Public
16 Investment Fund of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (“PIF”) and His Excellency Yasir Othman Al-
17 Rumayyan (“HE”), and its determinations that PIF and HE were not shielded by sovereign
18 immunity. See Reply 6, 10, ECF No. 473.
19 For the reasons discussed below, NYT’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
20 PART.
21 I. BACKGROUND
22 A. Parties and Claims
23 In August 2022, several professional golfers filed suit against Defendant PGA Tour, Inc.
24 (“PGA Tour”) asserting breach of contract and multiple violations of federal and California
25 antitrust laws based on PGA Tour’s alleged interference with their participation in the launch of a
26 competing professional golf tour by LIV Golf, Inc. (“LIV Golf”). See ECF No. 1. An amended
27 complaint followed in which LIV Golf appeared as a plaintiff alongside the professional golfers.
1 tortious interference with contract. See ECF No. 108. PGA Tour subsequently moved to compel
2 discovery from (then) non-parties PIF and HE. See ECF No. 148. Following motion practice and
3 oral argument, Magistrate Judge van Keulen issued an order (the “Discovery Order”) on February
4 9, 2023, granting PGA Tour’s motion to compel. See ECF Nos. 265, 380.
5 PIF and HE became defendants in this action on February 23, 2023, after the Court granted
6 PGA Tour leave to amend its counterclaim. See ECF Nos. 238, 280, 289. Shortly thereafter, on
7 February 28, 2023, PIF and HE filed a motion for de novo review and relief from the Discovery
8 Order; the Court denied the motion. See ECF Nos. 306, 392.
9 B. NYT’s Motion to Unseal
10 On June 16, 2023, NYT filed the pending Motion to Unseal, which was filed as a Motion
11 for an Order to Intervene and for an Order Unsealing Court Records. See ECF No. 460.1 NYT
12 initially requested that the Court review the entire docket and “appropriately unseal records,” Mot.
13 1, but subsequently narrowed the scope of its request to records regarding “PIF and [HE]’s claims
14 that they are not subject to the court’s jurisdiction and are shielded by sovereign immunity,” Reply
15 3. Specifically, NYT stated that it sought access to the following documents and their
16 attachments: ECF Nos. 148, 166, 169, 173, 209, 223-1, 225,2 230, 238, 265/380,3 322, and 436.
17 Reply 10. Further, NYT asserted in its Reply that although several of the records at issue had
18 initially been reviewed under the lower, “good cause” sealing standard, subsequent case
19 developments meant that the Court should apply the more stringent, “compelling reasons” sealing
20 standard. Reply 4–5.
21 The Court heard oral argument on the Motion to Unseal on August 3, 2023. See Aug. 3,
22 2023 Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 482. Because NYT had raised new arguments in its Reply, the Court
23 permitted LIV to file a supplemental brief regarding whether the sealing standard had changed
24
1 Later that day, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal of this action. ECF No. 462.
25
The Court approved the stipulation of dismissal on June 20, 2023. See ECF No. 463.
2 ECF No. 225 and its attachment at ECF No. 225-1 are identical to, respectively, ECF Nos. 209-3
26
and 209-2, which NYT separately requests. These documents are public versions of the sealed
documents at, respectively, ECF Nos. 208-2 and 208-1.
27
1 based on the posture of the case. See id. at 35:5–6; see also Sur-Reply, ECF No. 485. The Court
2 then issued an order on August 24, 2023 (the “Prior Order”), granting NYT’s request to intervene,
3 denying NYT’s motion to unseal with respect to ECF No. 436, finding that the sealing standard
4 had not changed, and ordering LIV Golf to file a statement in support of maintaining under seal
5 any currently-sealed information in the remaining documents to which NYT seeks access. See
6 Prior Order, ECF No. 497. The Court emphasized that LIV Golf’s requests to seal were to be
7 appropriately tailored to redact only sealable information. Id. at 11. LIV Golf submitted its
8 statement in support of sealing on September 7, 2023.
9 II. LEGAL STANDARD
10 A. Federal Common Law
11 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
12 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
13 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
14 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the
15 starting point,” id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.
16 2003)), and a party opposing a motion to unseal judicial records bears the burden of overcoming
17 the presumption. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–98 (9th
18 Cir. 2016) (reviewing standards to file under seal borne by party seeking sealing in evaluating
19 nonparty intervenor’s motion to unseal document).
20 Parties seeking to maintain under seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more
21 than tangentially related to the merits of a case,” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101, must show
22 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of
23 access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal
24 quotation marks and citation omitted). However, the strong presumption of public access does not
25 apply to judicial records relating to motions that are not related, or are only tangentially related, to
26 the merits of a case. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179
27 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive
1 underlying cause of action.”). Where such records are at issue, a party opposing unsealing “need
2 only satisfy the less exacting ‘good cause’ standard.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097.
3 B. First Amendment
4 The First Amendment provides a right of access to various types of judicial records. See
5 Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 947 F.3d 581, 590 (9th Cir. 2020). Courts apply an “experience
6 and logic” test to evaluate “the institutional value of public access to judicial proceedings and
7 records to determine whether the First Amendment provides a presumption of access.” Id. “To
8 determine whether a First Amendment right of access attaches to a type of judicial proceeding or
9 record, we consider (1) whether that proceeding or record ‘ha[s] historically been open to the press
10 and general public’ and (2) ‘whether public access plays a significant positive role in the
11 functioning of the particular [governmental] process in question.’” Id. (quoting Press-Enter. Co.
12 v. Super. Ct., 478 U.S. 1, 8 (1986)).
13 C. Civil Local Rules
14 The Local Rules of this Court additionally require that all requests to seal be “narrowly
15 tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). That is, the sealing motion
16 must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a
17 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that
18 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive
19 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Id. at 79-5(c)(1).
20 III. DISCUSSION
21 The documents to which NYT seeks access, as listed in Exhibit A to the Reply, see Reply
22 10, fall into three categories: (1) PIF and HE’s opposition to discovery sought by PGA Tour,
23 which includes filings related to PGA Tour’s motion to compel discovery and PIF and HE’s
24 motion to quash, the Discovery Order addressing both motions, and PGA Tour’s opposition to PIF
25 and HE’s motion for de novo review of the Discovery Order (NYT Reply Ex. A, Nos. 1–8, 10–
26 11); (2) PGA Tour’s motion for leave to amend its counterclaim to add PIF and HE as defendants
27 (NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 9); and (3) PIF and HE’s motion to dismiss (NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 12).
1 in the last category, i.e., PIF and HE’s motion to dismiss, located at ECF No. 436. See Prior Order
2 7–8, 11. The Court now turns to the other two categories of documents.
3 A. Category 1: Documents Related to Discovery Disputes (NYT Reply Ex. A, Nos.
1–8, 10–11)
4
NYT requests that the Court unseal materials related to a dispute over whether PGA Tour
5
could compel discovery from PIF and HE prior to their appearance as parties in this action. See
6
Reply 4–7. These materials are located on the public docket under lead ECF Nos. 148, 166, 169,
7
173, 209, 223-1, 225, 230, 265/380, and 322; they were sealed pursuant to three sealing orders,
8
located at ECF Nos. 266, 373, at 405. See id. at 10.
9
As the Court determined in the Prior Order, the good cause standard applies to these
10
documents because they were sealed in relation to discovery disputes that were not more than
11
tangentially related to the merits of the action. See Prior Order 10. PIF and HE’s eventual status
12
as defendants in this action did not “retroactively change the good cause sealing standard for the
13
discovery disputes.” Id. The Court additionally noted that NYT had not presented argument
14
under the test for disclosure under the First Amendment. Id. Accordingly, the Court now
15
evaluates NYT’s Motion to Unseal the discovery dispute-related documents, and LIV Golf’s
16
corresponding requests to maintain sealing, under the common law good cause standard.
17
LIV Golf argues that there is no reason to reconsider or deviate from the prior sealing
18
analyses because there has been no material change in circumstances that would affect the
19
justifications for sealing. LIV Golf’s Suppl. St. re Sealing (“LIV Suppl. St.”) 2, ECF No. 498.
20
LIV Golf further argues that the materials at issue contain information about business strategies,
21
financial information, internal corporate decision making, confidential negotiations, contracts and
22
agreements, corporate governance procedures, and email addresses, all of which courts in this
23
district have found to satisfy both the compelling reasons and good cause standards for sealing.
24
See id. 3–4 (citations omitted).
25
As noted above, a party opposing a motion to unseal judicial records bears the burden of
26
overcoming the presumption. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, LLC, 809 F.3d at 1096–98. Accordingly,
27
the Court does not rest on the prior sealing orders, but rather evaluates anew whether the materials
1 LIV Golf seeks to maintain under seal meet the good cause standard for sealing and the narrow
2 tailoring required by this district’s local rules.
3 For each document NYT seeks to unseal, LIV Golf has provided its position on whether
4 some or all of the currently sealed information should remain under seal. See App’x A to LIV
5 Suppl. St. (“App’x A”), ECF No. 498-1. LIV Golf has additionally resubmitted ten previously-
6 filed fact declarations from its Chief Legal Officer, John Loffhagen, in support of sealing. See
7 Exs. 1–10 to LIV Suppl. St., ECF Nos. 498-2–498-11. Nine of these declarations describe
8 different portions of the discovery dispute-related material LIV Golf seeks to maintain under seal
9 under the good cause standard, and the competitive harm that would result from the exposure of
10 the material at issue. See Exs. 1, 3–10 to LIV Suppl. St.
11 Courts in this circuit have held that confidential business information in the form of
12 “license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business
13 strategies” satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc.,
14 No. 17-cv-4810, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020); see also, e.g., In re Elec. Arts,
15 Inc., 298 F. App’x. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons for sealing “business
16 information that might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy,” including confidential contract
17 terms); In re Google Location Hist. Litig., No. 5:18-cv-05062-EJD, 514 F. Supp. 3d 1147, 1162
18 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021) (“Compelling reasons may exist to seal ‘trade secrets, marketing
19 strategies, product development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer
20 information, internal reports[.]’”) (citation omitted); Simpson Strong-Tie Co. Inc. v. MiTek Inc.,
21 No. 20-cv-06957-VKD, 2023 WL 350401, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2023) (granting sealing
22 request under compelling reasons standard of “confidential business development and internal
23 business strategy documents and intellectual property of MiTek, including internal MiTek research
24 and development information”); Zogenix, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2022 WL 3908529, at *1 n.1 (N.D.
25 Cal. May 26, 2022) (granting request to seal “internal conversations” about corporate “decision-
26 making process” in connection with summary judgment motion); Pinnacle Ventures LLC v.
27 Bertelsmann Educ. Servs., 2018 WL 11392741, at 1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2018) (granting sealing of
1 Hernandez v. County of Monterey, No. 13-cv-02354, 2023 WL 4688522, at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. July
2 21, 2023) (finding compelling reasons to seal email addresses and other personal contact
3 information). Such information is therefore sealable under the “less exacting” good cause
4 standard. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097.
5 Having reviewed LIV Golf’s arguments, the relevant Loffhagen declarations, and the
6 documents at issue, the Court finds that LIV Golf has shown good cause for maintaining under
7 seal the information in the discovery-related documents, which disclose confidential information
8 regarding LIV Golf’s formation; strategic launch plans; financials; internal decision-making
9 processes; negotiations with players, agents, and sponsors; and a Shareholders’ Agreement that
10 remains under seal. See In re Elec. Arts, 298 F. App’x at 569; Exeltis USA Inc., 2020 WL
11 2838812, at *1. However, the Court finds that certain of the sealing requests are not narrowly
12 tailored, and grants in part and denies in part those requests. The Court's rulings on the discovery-
13 related documents sought by NYT in its Motion to Unseal are set forth in the three tables below,
14 which are organized by sealing order. The Court notes that although this order deals with NYT’s
15 Motion to Unseal, it has for clarity fashioned its rulings as responsive to LIV Golf’s requests to
16 maintain information under seal. Thus “GRANT” will maintain sealing as a rejection of NYT’s
17 Motion to Unseal.
18 1. Sealing Order: ECF No. 266 (NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 10)
19
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
20
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
21 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
22 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
23 Sealing
24 NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 10
1 February 9, 2023 380 / (265, 13:20–14:11 DENIED as With the exception of
25 Order Granting 499-2) *14:14–16* to the first the first two words of
PGA Tour’s 15:3–9 two words of 13:20, which constitute
26
Motion to Compel 15:11–16:17 13:20; a section header,
27 and Denying PIF & 23:11–18 otherwise contains confidential
HE’s Motions to 25:20–25 GRANTED. information regarding
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
Doc. No. 1) 26:9–11 and strategic launch
5
26:17–21 plans; financials;
6 *27:5* internal decision-
36:21–24 making processes;
7 36:28–37:2 negotiations with
37:28 players, agents, and
8 38:1. sponsors; and a
Shareholders’
9
LIV Golf no longer Agreement that
10 seeks sealing of the remains under seal.
bolded ranges.
11
2. Sealing Order: ECF No. 373 (NYT Reply Ex. A, Nos. 1–8)
12
13 Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
14
ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
15 Modifications (If Maintain
Any) Under Seal
16 or Undo
Sealing
17 NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 1
18 2 PGA Tour’s 148 / (147-3, 3:6–9 GRANTED. Contains confidential
Motion to Compel 499-8) *4:14* information regarding
19 PIF & HE’s *6:19–20* identities of LIV Golf’s
Compliance with 6:26–28 consultants; internal
20
Subpoena (App’x 6:28–7:2 decision-making; and
21 A Doc. No. 6) 7:2–3 investor involvement in
7:3–4 decision-making.
22 *7:5–8*
9:8–18
23 *9:23–24*
16:28–17:3
24
18:10–13
25 *18:13* (last
sentence)
26 19:17–18
19:19–20
27
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
seeks sealing of the
5
bolded ranges.
6
3 Ex. 2 to 148-2 / (147- Entire document. DENIED for Large portions of the
7 Declaration of 4, 499-9) lack of document contain LIV
Brook Dooley in sufficient Golf’s confidential
8 Support of PGA tailoring. financial information
Tour’s Motion to and projections.
9
Compel PIF & However, LIV Golf has
10 HE’s Compliance not provided support
with Subpoena for sealing material
11 such as email fields (by
(App’x A Doc. No. which the Court means
12
7) to include, throughout
this order, information
13
such as dates, email
14 sender, recipients, and
subject line) and
15 footers, introductory
and other non-
16
confidential language
17 in the body of emails,
presentation section
18 headings, and
videoconference
19 logistics.
20
4 Ex. 14 to 148-3 / (147- Entire document. DENIED for Large portions of the
21 Declaration of 5, 499-10) lack of document contain LIV
Brook Dooley in sufficient Golf’s confidential
22 Support of PGA tailoring. business strategies.
Tour’s Motion to However, LIV Golf has
23 Compel PIF & not provided support
HE’s Compliance for sealing material
24
with Subpoena such as email fields
25 and footers,
(App’x A Doc. No. introductory and other
26 8) non-confidential
language in the body of
27 emails, and
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
headings.
5
6 5 Ex. 15 to 148-3 / (147- Entire document. DENIED for Large portions of the
Declaration of 6, 499-11) lack of document contain LIV
7 Brook Dooley in sufficient Golf’s confidential
Support of PGA tailoring. financial information;
8 Tour’s Motion to internal decision-
Compel PIF & making processes; and
9
HE’s Compliance consultants’ identities.
10 with Subpoena However, LIV Golf has
not provided support
11 (App’x A Doc. No. for sealing material
9) such as email fields
12
and footers,
introductory and other
13
non-confidential
14 language in the body of
emails (e.g., slide
15 numbers), and
presentation section
16
headings.
17
6 Ex. 16 to 148-3 / (147- Entire document. DENIED for Large portions of the
18 Declaration of 7, 499-12) lack of document contain LIV
Brook Dooley in sufficient Golf’s confidential
19 Support of PGA tailoring. financial information
Tour’s Motion to and projections.
20
Compel PIF & However, LIV Golf has
21 HE’s Compliance not provided support
with Subpoena for sealing material
22 such as presentation
(App’x A Doc. No. titles, dates, and
23 10) section headings.
24
7 Ex. 17 to 148-3 / (147- Entire document. DENIED for Large portions of the
25 Declaration of 8, 499-13) lack of document contain LIV
Brook Dooley in sufficient Golf’s confidential
26 Support of PGA tailoring. strategies. However,
Tour’s Motion to LIV Golf has not
27 Compel PIF & provided support for
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
with Subpoena as such as presentation
5
titles, dates, and
6 (App’x A Doc. No. section headings.
11)
7
8 Ex. 18 to 148-3 / (147- Entire document. GRANTED. Email addresses
8 Declaration of 9, 499-15) Although the relevant constitute confidential
Brook Dooley in sealing order granted personal contact
9
Support of PGA sealing only as to information for which
10 Tour’s Motion to “[p]age 2, email dated there is good cause to
Compel PIF & July 10, 2022,” see seal.
11 HE’s Compliance ECF No. 373, at 3, the
with Subpoena document was not
12
refiled with
(App’x A Doc. No. corresponding
13
12) redactions.
14
LIV Golf no longer
15 seeks sealing of the
document, except to
16
redact email addresses
17 for privacy.
18 9 Ex. 19 to 148-3 / (147- Entire document. Exhibit 19 is LIV Golf no longer
Declaration of 10, 499-16) hereby seeks sealing.
19 Brook Dooley in LIV Golf no longer ORDERED to
Support of PGA seeks sealing of the be unsealed.
20
Tour’s Motion to document.
21 Compel PIF &
HE’s Compliance
22 with Subpoena
23 (App’x A Doc. No.
13)
24
10 Ex. 34 to 148-5 / (147- Entire document. Exhibit 34 is LIV Golf does not seek
25 Declaration of 11) Although PGA Tour hereby sealing.
Brook Dooley in lodged this document ORDERED to
26 Support of PGA under seal, LIV Golf be unsealed.
Tour’s Motion to did not seek sealing.
27 Compel PIF & See ECF No. 158, at 4.
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
with Subpoena document was not filed
5
publicly following the
6 (Not included in relevant sealing order.
App’x A)
7
11 Ex. 40 to 148-5 / (147- Entire document. DENIED for The relevant page,
8 Declaration of 12, 499-17) Although the relevant lack of which consists of two
Brook Dooley in sealing order granted sufficient emails dated February
9
Support of PGA sealing only as to tailoring. 10, 2022, contains
10 Tour’s Motion to “[p]age 2,” see ECF confidential
Compel PIF & No. 373, pursuant to information about LIV
11 HE’s Compliance LIV Golf’s request, see Golf’s internal
with Subpoena ECF No. 158, at 4, the decision-making
12
document was not processes and investor
(App’x A Doc. No. refiled with involvement in those
13
14) corresponding processes. However,
14 redactions. LIV Golf has not
provided support for
15 LIV Golf seeks sealing material such
continued sealing of as email fields and
16
page 2. footers, introductory
17 and other non-
confidential language
18 in the body of emails.
19 12 Ex. 45 to 148-6 / (147- Entire document. DENIED for Although much of the
Declaration of 13, 499-18) lack of document contains
20
Brook Dooley in sufficient confidential
21 Support of PGA tailoring. information regarding
Tour’s Motion to LIV Golf’s player
22 Compel PIF & recruitment strategy
HE’s Compliance and plans, LIV Golf
23 with Subpoena has not provided
support for sealing
24
(App’x A Doc. No. material such as email
25 15) fields and footers,
introductory and other
26 non-confidential
language in the body of
27 emails, and section
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
presentation slides.
5
6 NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 2
13 PIF & HE’s Motion 166 / (165-3, *5:9–10* GRANTED. Contains LIV Golf’s
7
to Quash and 499-20) 5:11 confidential
8 Opposition to PGA 5:18 information regarding
Tour’s Motion to *5:19–25* investor involvement in
9 Compel 14:28–15:1 internal decision-
Compliance with making processes.
10
Subpoena LIV Golf no longer
11 seeks sealing of the
(App’x A Doc. No. bolded ranges.
12 16)
13 14 Declaration of Tim 166-1 / (165- Entire document. The Taylor LIV Golf no longer
Taylor in Support 2, 499-21) Declaration is seeks sealing.
14
of PIF & HE’s LIV Golf no longer hereby
15 Motion to Quash seeks sealing of this ORDERED to
and Opposition to document. be unsealed.
16 PGA Tour’s
Motion to Compel
17 Compliance with
Subpoena
18
19 (App’x A Doc. No.
17)
20
21 NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 3
15 PGA Tour’s Reply 169 / (168- *1:21* GRANTED. Contains LIV Golf’s
22 in Support of its 39, 499-23) *3:3–5* confidential
Motion to Compel 3:10–13 LIV Golf information regarding
23
PIF & HE’s 3:14–17 states that it negotiations,
24 Compliance with 3:18 no longer financials, and investor
Subpoena and 3:22–25 seeks sealing involvement in its
25 Opposition to PIF 4:2–6 of 8:22–23, internal decision-
& HE’s Motion to 4:6–8 see App’x A, making processes.
26 Quash 4:8–9 but the
4:11 proposed
27
(App’x A Doc. No. 4:14 redactions
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
4:16 23, see ECF
5
4:17 No. 499-23,
6 4:18–19 at 8. The
4:19–20 Court’s order
7 4:20–22 assumes the
4:24–25 highlighting
8 4:27–5:1 is erroneous,
5:8–9 and that LIV
9
5:9–13 Golf does not
10 5:16 seek sealing
5:18–21 of 8:22–23.
11 6:4–5
6:10–13 If LIV Golf in
12 6:14–15 fact seeks
6:16–18 sealing of
13
6:22–26 8:22–23, LIV
14 *8:22–23* Golf may
8:24–25 include this
15 8:25–26 document in a
8:26–28 further
16
8:28–9:1 administrative
17 10:17–18 motion to seal
*10:21–23* as provided
18 10:24–25 for in the
*10:25–27* Court’s
19 11:26 instructions at
11:27–28 the end of this
20
11:28–12:2 order.
21 *12:3*
12:3–4
22 12:7–9
12:11
23 12:14–16
*12:21–23*
24
13:07
25 13:24–25
13:26–27
26 13:27–28
13:28
27 13:28–14:1
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
14:3–4
5
*16:8–9*
6 *16:11*
16:11–16
7 *16:16–17*
18:22–24
8
16 Ex. 1 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although large
9
Declaration of 1, 499-24) lack of portions of the
10 Sophie Hood in sufficient document contain
Support of PGA tailoring. confidential
11 Tour’s Reply re information regarding
Motion to Compel LIV Golf’s business
12
and Opposition to strategies, LIV Golf
Motion to Quash has not provided
13
support for sealing
14 (App’x A Doc. No. material such as
19) presentation titles,
15 dates, and section
headers.
16
17 17 Ex. 2 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although much of the
Declaration of 2, 499-25) lack of document contains LIV
18 Sophie Hood in sufficient Golf’s confidential
Support of PGA tailoring. financial information,
19 Tour’s Reply re LIV Golf has not
Motion to Compel provided support for
20
and Opposition to sealing material such
21 Motion to Quash as section headings in
presentation slides.
22 (App’x A Doc. No.
20)
23
18 Ex. 3 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although much of the
24
Declaration of 3, 499-26) lack of document contains
25 Sophie Hood in sufficient confidential
Support of PGA tailoring. information regarding
26 Tour’s Reply re LIV Golf’s media
Motion to Compel strategy and partners,
27 and Opposition to LIV Golf has not
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
sealing material such
5
(App’x A Doc. No. as email fields, footers,
6 21) and introductory and
other non-confidential
7 language in the body of
emails.
8
19 Ex. 4 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although much of the
9
Declaration of 4, 499-27) lack of document contains
10 Sophie Hood in sufficient confidential
Support of PGA tailoring. information regarding
11 Tour’s Reply re LIV Golf’s media
Motion to Compel strategy and internal
12
and Opposition to decision-making, LIV
Motion to Quash Golf has not provided
13
support for sealing
14 (App’x A Doc. No. material such as email
22) fields, footers, and
15 introductory and other
non-confidential
16
language in the body of
17 emails.
18 20 Ex. 5 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. GRANTED Email addresses
Declaration of 5, 499-29) as to email constitute confidential
19 Sophie Hood in LIV Golf no longer addresses personal contact
Support of PGA seeks sealing of the only. information for which
20
Tour’s Reply re document, except to there is good cause to
21 Motion to Compel redact email addresses seal.
and Opposition to for privacy.
22 Motion to Quash
23 (App’x A Doc. No.
23)
24
25 21 Ex. 6 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although much of the
Declaration of 6, 499-30) lack of document contains LIV
26 Sophie Hood in sufficient Golf’s confidential
Support of PGA tailoring. information regarding
27 Tour’s Reply re investor involvement in
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
and Opposition to processes, LIV Golf
5
Motion to Quash has not provided
6 support for sealing
(App’x A Doc. No. material such as email
7 24) fields, footers, and
introductory and other
8 non-confidential
language in the body of
9
emails.
10
22 Ex. 7 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Exhibit 7 is LIV Golf no longer
11 Declaration of 7, 499-31) hereby seeks sealing.
Sophie Hood in LIV Golf no longer ORDERED to
12
Support of PGA seeks sealing of the be unsealed.
Tour’s Reply re document.
13
Motion to Compel
14 and Opposition to
Motion to Quash
15
(App’x A Doc. No.
16
25)
17
23 Ex. 8 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although much of the
18 Declaration of 8, 499-32) lack of document contains LIV
Sophie Hood in sufficient Golf’s confidential
19 Support of PGA tailoring. information regarding
Tour’s Reply re investor involvement in
20
Motion to Compel its decision-making,
21 and Opposition to LIV Golf has not
Motion to Quash provided support for
22 sealing material such
(App’x A Doc. No. as email fields, footers,
23 26) and introductory and
other non-confidential
24
language.
25
24 Ex. 9 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although the document
26 Declaration of 9, 499-33) lack of contains LIV Golf’s
Sophie Hood in sufficient confidential
27 Support of PGA tailoring. information regarding
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
Motion to Compel its decision-making,
5
and Opposition to LIV Golf has not
6 Motion to Quash provided support for
sealing material such
7 (App’x A Doc. No. as email fields, footers,
27) and introductory and
8 other non-confidential
language in the body of
9
emails.
10
25 Ex. 10 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although much of the
11 Declaration of 10, 499-34) lack of document contains LIV
Sophie Hood in sufficient Golf’s confidential
12
Support of PGA tailoring. information regarding
Tour’s Reply re investor involvement in
13
Motion to Compel its decision-making,
14 and Opposition to LIV Golf has not
Motion to Quash provided support for
15 sealing material such
(App’x A Doc. No. as email fields, footers,
16
28) and introductory and
17 other non-confidential
language in the body of
18 emails.
19 26 Ex. 11 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although much of the
Declaration of 11, 499-35) lack of document contains LIV
20
Sophie Hood in sufficient Golf’s confidential
21 Support of PGA tailoring. information regarding
Tour’s Reply re investor involvement in
22 Motion to Compel its decision-making,
and Opposition to LIV Golf has not
23 Motion to Quash provided support for
sealing material such
24
(App’x A Doc. No. as email fields, footers,
25 29) and introductory and
other non-confidential
26 language in the body of
emails.
27
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
27 Ex. 12 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. GRANTED Email addresses
5
Declaration of 12, 499-37) as to email constitute confidential
6 Sophie Hood in LIV Golf no longer addresses personal contact
Support of PGA seeks sealing of the only. information for which
7 Tour’s Reply re document, except to there is good cause to
Motion to Compel redact email addresses seal.
8 and Opposition to for privacy.
Motion to Quash
9
10 (App’x A Doc. No.
30)
11
28 Ex. 13 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although much of the
12
Declaration of 13, 500-1) lack of document contains
Sophie Hood in sufficient information regarding
13
Support of PGA tailoring. LIV Golf’s confidential
14 Tour’s Reply re negotiations, LIV Golf
Motion to Compel has not provided
15 and Opposition to support for sealing
Motion to Quash material such as email
16
fields, footers, and
17 (App’x A Doc. No. introductory and other
31) non-confidential
18 language in the body of
emails.
19
29 Ex. 14 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. GRANTED Email addresses
20
Declaration of 14, 500-3) as to email constitute confidential
21 Sophie Hood in LIV Golf no longer addresses personal contact
Support of PGA seeks sealing of the only. information for which
22 Tour’s Reply re document, except to there is good cause to
Motion to Compel redact email addresses seal.
23 and Opposition to for privacy.
Motion to Quash
24
25 (App’x A Doc. No.
32)
26
30 Ex. 15 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although this
27 Declaration of 15, 500-4) lack of document contains
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
Support of PGA tailoring. LIV Golf’s confidential
5
Tour’s Reply re negotiations, LIV Golf
6 Motion to Compel has not provided
and Opposition to support for sealing
7 Motion to Quash material such as email
fields and non-
8 (App’x A Doc. No. confidential
33) introductory language.
9
10 31 Ex. 16 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although much of the
Declaration of 16, 500-15) lack of document contains
11 Sophie Hood in sufficient information regarding
Support of PGA tailoring. LIV Golf’s confidential
12
Tour’s Reply re negotiations, LIV Golf
Motion to Compel has not provided
13
and Opposition to support for sealing
14 Motion to Quash material such as email
fields, footers, and
15 (App’x A Doc. No. introductory and other
34) non-confidential
16
language in the body of
17 emails.
18 32 Ex. 17 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although the vast
Declaration of 17, 500-6) lack of majority of this
19 Sophie Hood in sufficient document contains
Support of PGA tailoring. information regarding
20
Tour’s Reply re LIV Golf’s confidential
21 Motion to Compel negotiations, LIV Golf
and Opposition to has not provided
22 Motion to Quash support for sealing
material such as the
23 (App’x A Doc. No. last two words of the
35) first line, first two
24
words of the second
25 line, and section
headings.
26
33 Ex. 18 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although much of the
27 Declaration of 18, 500-7) lack of document contains
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
Support of PGA tailoring. information regarding
5
Tour’s Reply re LIV Golf’s
6 Motion to Compel negotiations with
and Opposition to specific players, LIV
7 Motion to Quash Golf has not provided
support for sealing
8 (App’x A Doc. No. material such as email
36) fields, footers, and
9
introductory and other
10 non-confidential
language in the body of
11 emails.
12
34 Ex. 19 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although the document
Declaration of 19, 500-8) lack of contains confidential
13
Sophie Hood in sufficient information regarding
14 Support of PGA tailoring. LIV Golf’s
Tour’s Reply re negotiations with
15 Motion to Compel specific players, LIV
and Opposition to Golf has not provided
16
Motion to Quash support for sealing
17 material such as email
(App’x A Doc. No. fields, footers, and
18 37) introductory and other
non-confidential
19 language (such as
section headings) in the
20
body of emails.
21
35 Ex. 20 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. GRANTED. Document wholly
22 Declaration of 20, 500-9) concerns confidential
Sophie Hood in information regarding
23 Support of PGA LIV Golf’s player
Tour’s Reply re recruitment.
24
Motion to Compel
25 and Opposition to
Motion to Quash
26
(App’x A Doc. No.
27 38)
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
36 Ex. 21 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. GRANTED. Document wholly
5
Declaration of 21, 500-10) concerns confidential
6 Sophie Hood in information regarding
Support of PGA LIV Golf’s recruitment
7 Tour’s Reply re of a potential sponsor.
Motion to Compel
8 and Opposition to
Motion to Quash
9
10 (App’x A Doc. No.
39)
11
37 Ex. 22 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although much of the
12
Declaration of 22, 500-11) lack of document contains
Sophie Hood in sufficient confidential
13
Support of PGA tailoring. information regarding
14 Tour’s Reply re LIV Golf’s recruitment
Motion to Compel of potential sponsors,
15 and Opposition to LIV Golf has not
Motion to Quash provided support for
16
sealing material such
17 (App’x A Doc. No. as email fields, footers,
40) and introductory and
18 other non-confidential
language in the body of
19 emails.
20
38 Ex. 23 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. GRANTED. Document wholly
21 Declaration of 23, 500-12) concerns confidential
Sophie Hood in information regarding
22 Support of PGA LIV Golf’s recruitment
Tour’s Reply re of broadcasters.
23 Motion to Compel
and Opposition to
24
Motion to Quash
25
(App’x A Doc. No.
26 41)
27 39 Ex. 24 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Exhibit 24 is LIV Golf no longer
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
Sophie Hood in LIV Golf no longer ORDERED to
5
Support of PGA seeks sealing of the be unsealed.
6 Tour’s Reply re document.
Motion to Compel
7 and Opposition to
Motion to Quash
8
(App’x A Doc. No.
9
42)
10
40 Ex. 25 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although much of the
11 Declaration of 25, 500-14) lack of document contains
Sophie Hood in sufficient confidential
12
Support of PGA tailoring. information regarding
Tour’s Reply re LIV Golf’s detailed
13
Motion to Compel financial data, LIV
14 and Opposition to Golf has not provided
Motion to Quash support for sealing
15 material such as email
(App’x A Doc. No. fields, footers, and
16
43) introductory and other
17 non-confidential
language in the body of
18 emails.
19 41 Ex. 26 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although much of the
Declaration of 26, 500-15) lack of document contains
20
Sophie Hood in sufficient confidential
21 Support of PGA tailoring. information regarding
Tour’s Reply re LIV Golf’s business
22 Motion to Compel and marketing
and Opposition to strategies, LIV Golf
23 Motion to Quash has not provided
support for sealing
24
(App’x A Doc. No. material such as
25 44) presentation titles,
overviews, or section
26 headings.
27 42 Ex. 27 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. GRANTED Email addresses
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
Sophie Hood in LIV Golf no longer addresses personal contact
5
Support of PGA seeks sealing of the only. information for which
6 Tour’s Reply re document, except to there is good cause to
Motion to Compel redact email addresses seal.
7 and Opposition to for privacy.
Motion to Quash
8
(App’x A Doc. No.
9
45)
10
43 Ex. 28 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. GRANTED Email addresses
11 Declaration of 28, 500-19) as to email constitute confidential
Sophie Hood in LIV Golf no longer addresses personal contact
12
Support of PGA seeks sealing of the only. information for which
Tour’s Reply re document, except to there is good cause to
13
Motion to Compel redact email addresses seal.
14 and Opposition to for privacy.
Motion to Quash
15
(App’x A Doc. No.
16
46)
17
44 Ex. 29 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. GRANTED. This document,
18 Declaration of 29, 500-20) including headings,
Sophie Hood in consists solely of
19 Support of PGA confidential
Tour’s Reply re information regarding
20
Motion to Compel LIV Golf’s media
21 and Opposition to strategies.
Motion to Quash
22
(App’x A Doc. No.
23 47)
24
45 Ex. 30 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although much of the
25 Declaration of 30, 500-21) lack of document contains LIV
Sophie Hood in sufficient Golf’s confidential
26 Support of PGA tailoring. information investor
Tour’s Reply re involvement in its
27 Motion to Compel internal decision-
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
Motion to Quash Golf has not provided
5
support for sealing
6 (App’x A Doc. No. material such as email
48) fields, footers, and
7 introductory and other
non-confidential
8 language in the body of
emails.
9
10 46 Ex. 31 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although the document
Declaration of 31, 500-22) lack of contains confidential
11 Sophie Hood in sufficient information LIV Golf’s
Support of PGA tailoring. work with specific
12
Tour’s Reply re consultants, LIV Golf
Motion to Compel has not provided
13
and Opposition to support for sealing
14 Motion to Quash material not related to
the consultants at issue,
15 (App’x A Doc. No. such as email fields,
49) footers, and logistical
16
information regarding
17 LIV Golf participants.
18 47 Ex. 32 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although the document
Declaration of 32, 500-23) lack of contains confidential
19 Sophie Hood in sufficient information regarding
Support of PGA tailoring. LIV Golf’s investors’
20
Tour’s Reply re involvement in
21 Motion to Compel decision-making, LIV
and Opposition to Golf has not provided
22 Motion to Quash support for sealing
material such as email
23 (App’x A Doc. No. fields, footers, and
50) introductory and other
24
non-confidential
25 language in the body of
emails.
26
48 Ex. 33 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although the document
27 Declaration of 33, 500-24) lack of contains confidential
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
Support of PGA tailoring. LIV Golf’s recruitment
5
Tour’s Reply re of potential sponsors,
6 Motion to Compel LIV Golf has not
and Opposition to provided support for
7 Motion to Quash sealing material such
as email fields, footers,
8 (App’x A Doc. No. introductory and other
51) non-confidential
9
language (such as
10 section headings) in the
body of emails.
11
49 Ex. 34 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although the document
12
Declaration of 34, 500-25) lack of contains confidential
Sophie Hood in sufficient information regarding
13
Support of PGA tailoring. LIV Golf’s recruitment
14 Tour’s Reply re of potential sponsors,
Motion to Compel LIV Golf has not
15 and Opposition to provided support for
Motion to Quash sealing material such
16
as email fields, footers,
17 (App’x A Doc. No. and introductory and
52) other non-confidential
18 language in the body of
emails.
19
50 Ex. 35 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although the document
20
Declaration of 35, 500-26) lack of contains confidential
21 Sophie Hood in sufficient information regarding
Support of PGA tailoring. LIV Golf’s recruitment
22 Tour’s Reply re of sponsors, LIV Golf
Motion to Compel has not provided
23 and Opposition to support for sealing
Motion to Quash material such as email
24
fields, footers, and
25 (App’x A Doc. No. introductory and other
53) non-confidential
26 language in the body of
emails.
27
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
51 Ex. 36 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although much of the
5
Declaration of 36, 500-27) lack of document contains
6 Sophie Hood in sufficient confidential
Support of PGA tailoring. information regarding
7 Tour’s Reply re LIV Golf’s
Motion to Compel negotiations with
8 and Opposition to specific players and its
Motion to Quash internal decision-
9
making, LIV Golf has
10 (App’x A Doc. No. not provided support
54) for sealing material
11 such as email fields,
footers, and
12 introductory and other
non-confidential
13
language in the body of
14 emails.
15 52 Ex. 37 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. GRANTED. This document consists
Declaration of 37, 500-28) solely of LIV Golf’s
16
Sophie Hood in confidential
17 Support of PGA information regarding
Tour’s Reply re its business structure
18 Motion to Compel and oversight.
and Opposition to
19 Motion to Quash
20
(App’x A Doc. No.
21 55)
22 53 Ex. 44 to 169-3 / (168- Entire document. DENIED for Although the document
Declaration of 38, 500-29) lack of contains confidential
23 Sophie Hood in sufficient information regarding
Support of PGA tailoring. LIV Golf’s business
24
Tour’s Reply re plans, financials, and
25 Motion to Compel recruitment efforts,
and Opposition to LIV Golf has not
26 Motion to Quash provided support for
sealing material such
27 (App’x A Doc. No. as presentation titles
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
5
NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 4
6 54 PIF & HE Reply in 173 / (172-2, 3:8–15 GRANTED.
Support of Motion 500-31) *3:17*
7
to Quash 3:18 If LIV Golf
8 *4:16* intended to
(App’x A Doc. No. 6:5–9 make a
9 57) 6:11–12 sealing
7:5–11 request other
10 7:27–28 than that
stated in the
11
LIV Golf no longer preceding
12 seeks sealing of the column as the
bolded ranges. LIV Court’s
13 Golf also states it does assumption,
not seek sealing of LIV Golf may
14
6:10, see App’x A, but include this
that line is not document in a
15
presently sealed, see further
16 ECF No. 173, at 6. administrative
Additionally, although motion to seal
17 LIV Golf states it as provided
wishes to maintain for in the
18
under seal 3:8–15, its Court’s
19 proposed redactions instructions at
only highlight 3:9–14. the end of this
20 See ECF No. 500-31, at order.
3. Multiple proposed
21 redactions include
citations that are
22
currently public. See
23 id.; see also id. at 6.
The Court here
24 assumes that LIV Golf
requests to maintain
25 the status quo as to all
redactions except the
26
bolded ranges.
27
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
5 NYT Reply Ex. A, Nos. 5 & 74
55 Shareholders’ 209-2, 225-1 Entire document. GRANTED. Contains confidential
6
Agreement / (208-1, information regarding
500-32) LIV Golf’s corporate
7
(App’x A Doc. No. governance, investment
8 58) structure, internal
financial reporting, and
9 internal decision-
making and budgeting
10
processes.
11
56 PGA Tour’s 209-3, 225 / 1:11–12 GRANTED Contains excerpts of
12 Supplemental (208-2, 500- 1:13–14 sealed Shareholders’
Memorandum in 33) 1:23–26 Agreement.
13 Support of Its 1:28–2:3
Motion to Compel 2:12–13
14
PIF & HE’s 2:14–16
15 Compliance with 2:18–22
Subpoena and 2:22–24
16 Opposition to 2:24
Motion to Quash 2:24–4:1
17 4:16–17
(App’x A Doc. No. 4:18–19
18
59) 4:25–26
19 5:7–11
20 NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 6
21 57 PGA Tour’s 224-1 / (223- Slides: DENIED for The sealing requests
Presentation made 1, 500-34) lack of for several of the slides
22 during January 13, 7 sufficient at issue concern
2023 hearing on 8 tailoring. information addressed
23
PGA Tour’s 9 elsewhere in this order
24 Motion to Compel 10 for which either (1)
PIF & HE’s 11 LIV Golf no longer
25 Compliance with 12 requests sealing, see,
Subpoena 13 e.g., slide 12
26 14 (excerpting document
(App’x A Doc. No. 15 at row 22 of this order),
27
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
4 Sealing
60) 16 or (2) the Court has
5
17 denied LIV Golf’s
6 18 request for continued
19 sealing for lack of
7 20 sufficient tailoring, see,
21 e.g., slide 14
8 22 (excerpting document
28 addressed at row 53 of
9
29 this order). LIV Golf
10 32 has not provided
39 support for sealing
11 such materials.
12
NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 8
13 58 PIF & HE’s 230 / (229-3) 3:1–8 GRANTED. Contains excerpts of
Response to PGA 3:14–15 sealed Shareholders’
14
Tour’s 3:23–4:1 Agreement.
15 Supplemental 4:10–11
Memorandum in 4:13–20
16 Support of Its
Motion to Compel
17
PIF & HE’s
Compliance with
18
Subpoena and
19 Opposition to
Motion to Quash
20
(App’x A Doc. No.
21
61)
22
23
24
25
26
27
1 3. Sealing Order: ECF No. 405 (NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 11)
2
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
3
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
4 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
5 Any) Under Seal
or Undo
6 Sealing
7 NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 11
59 PGA Tour’s 322 / (321-1, 2:26–3:1 GRANTED With respect to the
8
Opposition to PIF 500-36) 3:10–14 as to portions portions to be
9 & HE’s Motion for 3:16–19 listed in LIV maintained under seal:
De Novo Review 3:21–28 Golf’s
10 of February 9, 2023 4:4–7 Appendix A. Contains confidential
Order 4:11–27 information regarding
11 5:1–10 LIV Golf is LIV Golf’s
(App’x A Doc. No. 10:21–23 ORDERED to Shareholders’
12
62) submit a Agreement, including
13 Although not listed in statement investor relations;
LIV Golf’s Appendix regarding its investor involvement in
14 A or the Court’s prior position with decision-making;
sealing order, the respect to investor rights;
15
following portions are maintaining corporate governance
16 also currently under under seal the documents; consulting
seal and are other redacted work about and
17 highlighted in LIV portions contracts with potential
Golf’s current sealing identified sponsors and
18 request: here within broadcasters;
3:2; 7:13–14; 10:17– ten days of negotiations with
19
18; 10:26–27; and the entry of players, agents, and
20 11:3–4. See ECF No. this order. sponsors, including
500-36. The statement financial offers;
21 may be financial information
submitted as about LIV’s formation.
22 part of a
further
23
administrative
24 motion to seal
as provided
25 for in the
Court’s
26 instructions at
the end of this
27
order.
B. Category 2: Documents Related to PGA Tour’s Counterclaim (NYT Reply Ex.
1 A, No. 9; Sealing Order: ECF No. 279)
2 The above tables concern NYT’s requests that the Court unseal materials related to a
3 dispute over whether PGA Tour could compel discovery from PIF and HE prior to their
4 appearance as parties in this action. See supra, at Parts III(A), III(A)(1)(a)–(c). The Court now
5 turns to the remaining category of documents requested by NYT, namely, documents related to
6 PGA Tour’s counterclaim. See id, at Part III(A). These materials are located on the public docket
7 under lead ECF No. 238; they were sealed pursuant to the sealing orders located at ECF No. 279.
8 See Reply 10.
9 As determined in the Prior Order, both the common law and First Amendment analyses
10 apply to these documents, which are more than tangentially related to the merits of the action. See
11 Prior Order 8–9. “LIV Golf bears the burden of articulating compelling reasons for and a
12 substantial interest in maintaining under seal PGA Tour’s motion for leave to amend its
13 counterclaim and the related attachments.” Id. at 9 (citing Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096–
14 97).
15 LIV Golf argues that the materials at issue contain confidential information about its
16 Shareholders’ Agreement; an agreement setting out its relationship with its investors; its internal
17 decision-making processes; specific negotiations and offers to players, agents, sponsors, and
18 broadcasters; and the terms of certain indemnification agreements. See LIV Suppl. St. 3–4; App’x
19 A 4–15. LIV Golf additionally submits a previously-filed fact declaration from John Loffhagen in
20 support of sealing. See Ex. 2 to LIV Suppl. St., ECF No. 498-3.
21 As noted above, courts in this circuit have held that confidential business information,
22 including “license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and
23 business strategies,” satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. Exeltis USA Inc., 2020 WL
24 2838812, at *1; see generally supra, at Part III(A)(1) (citing cases).
25 Having reviewed LIV Golf’s arguments, the relevant Loffhagen declaration, and the
26 documents at issue, the Court finds that LIV Golf has generally shown compelling reasons (under
27 the common law) and a substantial interest in privacy (under the First Amendment) supporting the
1 leave to amend its counterclaim to add PIF and HE as defendants. However, as with the
2 discovery-related documents, the Court finds that certain of the sealing requests are not narrowly
3 tailored; it grants in part and denies in part those requests. The Court's rulings on the
4 counterclaim-related documents sought by NYT in its Motion to Unseal are set forth in the table
5 below.
6
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
7
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
8 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
9 Any) Under Seal or
Undo Sealing
10 NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 9
60 PGA Tour’s 238 / (237-4, 3:26–27 GRANTED. Contains confidential
11
Motion for Leave 499-6) 5:14–16 information regarding
12 to Amend 5:18–20 sealed Shareholders’
Counterclaim to 5:23–24 Agreement; terms of
13 Add Counter- 6:1 indemnification
Defendants (App’x 6:3–12 agreements revealing
14
A Doc. No. 5) 7:23–27 contours of potential
15 litigation; specific
negotiations and offers
16 to certain players,
agents, sponsors, and
17 broadcasters;
recruitment of specific
18
players.
19
61 Ex. A to PGA 238-2 / (237- ¶¶ 6, 25, 31–35, 44 GRANTED. Contains confidential
20 Tour’s Motion for 1, 499-3) information regarding
Leave to Amend sealed Shareholders’
21 Counterclaim The final Agreement; terms of
(Proposed public indemnification
22
Counterclaim) version of agreements revealing
23 (App’x A Doc. No. the contours of potential
2) document is litigation; specific
24 located at negotiations and offers
ECF No. to certain players,
25 289. agents, sponsors, and
broadcasters.
26
27
Document Public ECF Portions Currently Result re: Reasoning
1
No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV LIV Golf’s
2 ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Requests to
Modifications (If Maintain
3 Any) Under Seal or
Undo Sealing
4 62 Ex. B to PGA 238-3 / (237- ¶¶ 6, 25, 31–35, 44 GRANTED. Contains confidential
Tour’s Motion for 2, 499-4) information regarding
5
Leave to Amend sealed Shareholders’
6 Counterclaim Agreement; terms of
(Proposed indemnification
7 Counterclaim – agreements revealing
Redline) (App’x A contours of potential
8 Doc. No. 3) litigation; specific
negotiations and offers
9
to certain players,
10 agents, sponsors, and
broadcasters.
11
63 Ex. C to PGA 238-4 / (237- Entire document. DENIED for Although much of the
12
Tour’s Motion for 3, 499-5) lack of information contains
Leave to Amend sufficient confidential information
13
Counterclaim tailoring. regarding LIV Golf’s
14 (App’x A Doc. No. recruitment of players
4) (including the identities
15 of the players, the
number of offers, the
16 structure of the offers,
and the terms of the
17
offers, including specific
18 amounts), LIV Golf has
not provided compelling
19 reasons to seal material
such as email fields,
20 footers, and
introductory and other
21 non-confidential
language in the body of
22
emails.
23
24
IV. ORDER
25
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS that within ten days of the entry of this
26
order:
27
(1) LIV Golf shall submit to the Court a statement in accordance with the Court’s
1 instructions at row 59 of this order, regarding clarification of LIV Golf’s sealing
2 requests for Appendix A Document Number 62.
3 (2) LIV Golf may file an administrative motion to maintain under seal any document
4 for which the Court denied LIV Golf’s sealing request due to insufficient tailoring,
5 or for the documents addressed at rows 15 and 54 of this order if any clarification is
6 required, with proposed redactions in accordance with the guidance provided by
7 this order. The motion, if filed, shall comply with Section V of the Court’s
8 Standing Order re Civil Cases.
9 (3) LIV Golf shall file on the public docket, in accordance with the redactions—or lack
10 thereof—provided for by this order, all documents not included in an
11 administrative motion to maintain under seal. The documents shall be filed in a
12 manner conducive to a third-party’s understanding of the context for and contents
5 13 of the refiled documents, which may include, for example, filing an accompanying
14 chart or other form of reference.
a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
17 || Dated: October 5, 2023
18
19 _faivisaciian
TH LABSON FREEMAN
20 United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28