reviewing standards to file under seal borne by party seeking sealing in evaluating 13 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 13 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
9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
SEAL
10 PGA TOUR, INC.,
Re: ECF Nos. 352, 377, 379
Defendant.
11
12
13 Presently before the Court are three administrative motions (the “Administrative Motions”)
14 to seal, or to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed, filed by PGA Tour, Inc.
15 (“PGA Tour”) and LIV Golf, Inc. (“LIV Golf”) in this action. See ECF Nos. 352, 377, 379. The
16 Administrative Motions concern Defendant PGA Tour, Inc.’s (“PGA Tour”) motion for alternate
17 service on the Public Investment Fund of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (“PIF”) and His
18 Excellency Yasir Othman Al-Rumayyan (“HE”), see ECF No. 352, as well as various case
19 management conference statements and related exhibits, see ECF Nos. 377, 379. For the
20 following reasons, the Administrative Motions are GRANTED.
21 I. BACKGROUND
22 In March 2023, PGA Tour moved for an order authorizing alternative service of its
23 counterclaim on PIF and HE, see ECF No. 353, and filed an accompanying administrative motion
24 to consider whether LIV Golf’s material should be sealed, see ECF No. 352. LIV Golf timely
25 filed a statement in support of sealing its material. See ECF No. 385. After PIF and HE stated
26 they would not seek to challenge service of process, the Court denied the motion as moot. See
27 ECF No. 362. Later that month, the plaintiffs filed a Joint Case Management Statement, see ECF
1 administrative motion to consider whether PGA Tour’s material should be sealed, see ECF Nos.
2 377, 379. PGA Tour timely filed a statement in support of sealing its material. See ECF No. 401.
3 This action was voluntarily dismissed in June 2023.
4 II. LEGAL STANDARD
5 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
6 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
7 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
8 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the
9 starting point,” id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.
10 2003)), and a party opposing a motion to unseal judicial records bears the burden of overcoming
11 the presumption. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–98 (9th
12 Cir. 2016) (reviewing standards to file under seal borne by party seeking sealing in evaluating
13 nonparty intervenor’s motion to unseal document).
14 Parties seeking to maintain under seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more
15 than tangentially related to the merits of a case,” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101, must show
16 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of
17 access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal
18 quotation marks and citation omitted). However, the strong presumption of public access does not
19 apply to judicial records relating to motions that are not related, or are only tangentially related, to
20 the merits of a case. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179
21 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive
22 motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the
23 underlying cause of action.”). Where such records are at issue, a party opposing unsealing “need
24 only satisfy the less exacting ‘good cause’ standard.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097.
25 III. DISCUSSION
26 ECF No. 352 concerns the redaction of PGA Tour’s Motion for Alternative Service, ECF
27 No. 353; and ECF Nos. 377 and 379 both concern the redaction of the parties’ Joint Case
1 PGA Tour’s administrative motion to consider whether LIV Golf’s material should be
2 sealed in connection with its Motion for Alternative Service, and LIV Golf’s corresponding
3 statement in support of sealing, see ECF No. 385, are subject to the compelling reasons standard
4 for sealing because the underlying motion regarded service of PGA Tour’s counterclaim, which
5 goes to the merits of the case. See Center for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099. LIV Golf seeks to
6 redact two email addresses which are located on two different sets of pages in the Motion for
7 Alternative Service. See ECF No. 385. Courts in this circuit routinely seal email addresses and
8 other personal identifying information under the compelling reasons standard due to the potential
9 privacy harm to the individual whose contact information may be exposed. See, e.g., In re Pac.
10 Fertility Ctr. Litig., No. 18-cv-01586, 2021 WL 1082843, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2021) (sealing
11 email addresses under compelling reasons standard); see also Kumandan v. Google LLC, 2022
12 WL 17971633, No. 19-cv-04286, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2022) (listing cases sealing personal
13 information under compelling reasons standard). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the request to
14 redact email addresses in PGA Tour’s Motion for Alternative Service, as indicated in the chart
15 below.
16 The requests to seal the Joint Case Management Statement located at ECF No. 378 are
17 subject to the good cause standard because the document is not more than tangentially related to
18 the merits of the case. See Center for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099. Having reviewed the
19 statements in support of sealing, see ECF Nos. 377, 379, 401, the Court finds good cause to grant
20 the redactions, which are narrowly tailored to avoid competitive or privacy harms. The Court’s
21 rulings are indicated in the chart below.
Document Public Proposed Result Reasoning
22
ECF No. / Redactions
23 (Sealed
ECF No.)
24 Administrative Motion: ECF No. 352; Statement in Support of Sealing: ECF No. 385
25 PGA Tour’s 353 / 5:4 GRANTED. Email addresses
Motion for (352-1) 8:22–23 constitute confidential
26 Alternative personal contact
Service information for which
27 there is good cause to
1 Document Public Proposed Result Reasoning
ECF No./ | Redactions
2 (Sealed
ECF No.
3 Administrative Motion: ECF No. 377
4 Joint Case 378 / 9:24-10:1 GRANTED. | Contains confidential
Management (377-3) 10:12-13 information regarding
5 Statement 10:16-18 LIV Golf’s formation,
10:27-11:2 negotiations with
6 15:3-4 sponsors and
7 broadcasters, and
communications with
g players and agents.
9
10 . . .
Administrative Motion: ECF No. 379; Statement in Support of Sealing: ECF No. 401
11 Joint Case 378 / 2:4-6 GRANTED. | Contains
Management (377-3, 2:7-8 characterizations of and
Statement 379-1) 3:7-11 direct quotes from
& 13 3:13-14 confidential
communications
14 regarding PGA Tour’s
strategic business plans
15 and PGA Tour’s
2 communications with
16 t .
government agencies.
17
Exhibit A to 378-1 / Entire document. GRANTED. | Contains personal
Z 18 Joint Case (377-4) identifying information
Management of non-party fact
19 Statement witnesses. See ECF No.
0 401.
No further action is required of the parties with respect to the Administrative Motions.
22
73 IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 5, 2023
24
25
26
eth Labson Freeman
United States District Judge
27
28