reviewing standards to file under seal borne by party seeking sealing in evaluating 14 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 14 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 LIV GOLF, INC.’S
RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE
9 v. MOTION TO SEAL; REQUIRING
FILING OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS
10 PGA TOUR, INC., ADDRESSED IN ECF NO. 501
Defendant. Re: ECF No. 505
11
12
13 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff LIV Golf, Inc.’s (“LIV Golf”) Renewed
14 Administrative Motion to Seal (the “Motion”). See Mot., ECF No. 505. LIV Golf filed the Motion
15 pursuant to the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part The New York Times Co.’s
16 Motion to Unseal (“Order Regarding Unsealing”). See Mot. 1; see also Order Re Unsealing, ECF
17 No. 501. The Order Regarding Unsealing concerned non-party The New York Times Company’s
18 (“NYT”) motion to unseal certain judicial records in this action related to the Court’s jurisdiction
19 over the Public Investment Fund of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (“PIF”) and His Excellency
20 Yasir Othman Al-Rumayyan (“HE”), and its determinations that PIF and HE were not shielded by
21 sovereign immunity. See Order Re Unsealing 1.
22 For the reasons discussed below, LIV Golf’s Motion is GRANTED.
23 I. BACKGROUND1
24 A. Parties and Claims
25 In August 2022, several professional golfers filed suit against Defendant PGA Tour, Inc.
26 (“PGA Tour”) asserting breach of contract and multiple violations of federal and California
27
1 antitrust laws based on PGA Tour’s alleged interference with their participation in the launch of a
2 competing professional golf tour by LIV Golf. See ECF No. 1. An amended complaint followed
3 in which LIV Golf appeared as a plaintiff alongside the professional golfers. See ECF No. 83. In
4 September 2022, PGA Tour brought a counterclaim against LIV Golf for tortious interference
5 with contract. See ECF No. 108. PGA Tour subsequently moved to compel discovery from (then)
6 non-parties PIF and HE. See ECF No. 148. Following motion practice and oral argument,
7 Magistrate Judge van Keulen issued an order (the “Discovery Order”) on February 9, 2023,
8 granting PGA Tour’s motion to compel. See ECF Nos. 265, 380.
9 PIF and HE became defendants in this action on February 23, 2023, after the Court granted
10 PGA Tour leave to amend its counterclaim. See ECF Nos. 238, 280, 289. Shortly thereafter, on
11 February 28, 2023, PIF and HE filed a motion for de novo review and relief from the Discovery
12 Order; the Court denied the motion. See ECF Nos. 306, 392.
13 B. NYT’s Motion to Unseal
14 On June 16, 2023, NYT filed the pending Motion to Unseal, which was filed as a Motion
15 for an Order to Intervene and for an Order Unsealing Court Records. See ECF No. 460.2 NYT
16 initially requested that the Court review the entire docket and “appropriately unseal records,” id. at
17 1, but subsequently narrowed the scope of its request to records regarding “PIF and [HE]’s claims
18 that they are not subject to the court’s jurisdiction and are shielded by sovereign immunity,” Reply
19 3, ECF No. 473. Specifically, NYT stated that it sought access to the following documents and
20 their attachments: ECF Nos. 148, 166, 169, 173, 209, 223-1, 225,3 230, 238, 265/380,4 322, and
21 436. Reply 10. Further, NYT asserted in its Reply that although several of the records at issue
22 had initially been reviewed under the lower, “good cause” sealing standard, subsequent case
23 developments meant that the Court should apply the more stringent, “compelling reasons” sealing
24
2 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.
3 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 standard. Reply 4–5. The Court heard oral argument on the Motion to Unseal on August 3, 2023.
2 See Aug. 3, 2023 Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 482. Because NYT had raised new arguments in its Reply,
3 the Court permitted LIV to file a supplemental brief regarding whether the sealing standard had
4 changed based on the posture of the case. See id. at 35:5–6; see also Sur-Reply, ECF No. 485.
5 C. Order Regarding Intervention
6 The Court issued an order on August 24, 2023 (the “Order Regarding Intervention”),
7 granting NYT’s request to intervene, denying NYT’s motion to unseal with respect to ECF No.
8 436, finding that the sealing standard had not changed, and ordering LIV Golf to file a statement
9 in support of maintaining under seal any currently-sealed information in the remaining documents
10 to which NYT seeks access. See Order Re Intervention, ECF No. 497. The Court emphasized that
11 LIV Golf’s requests to seal were to be appropriately tailored to redact only sealable information.
12 Id. at 11. LIV Golf submitted its statement in support of sealing on September 7, 2023.
13 D. Order Regarding Unsealing
14 On October 5, 2023, the Court issued the Order Regarding Unsealing. Although that order
15 concerned the remainder of NYT’s motion to unseal not addressed by the Order Regarding
16 Intervention, the Court, in the interest of clarity, fashioned its rulings as responsive to LIV Golf’s
17 requests to maintain information under seal, such that a ruling of “GRANT” maintained sealing as
18 a rejection of NYT’s motion to unseal. See Order Re Unsealing 7. Of the 63 documents
19 remaining at issue after the Order Regarding Intervention, 59 were related to discovery disputes
20 and 4 were related to PGA Tour’s motion for leave to amend its counterclaim to add PIF and HE
21 as defendants. See id. at 5–31 (discovery disputes), 32–34 (counterclaim).
22 1. Discovery-Related Documents
23 The Court found the 59 documents related to discovery disputes were subject to the good
24 cause standard for sealing, and that LIV Golf had shown the 59 documents—which disclosed
25 confidential information regarding LIV Golf’s formation; strategic launch plans; financials;
26 internal decision-making processes; negotiations with players, agents, and sponsors; and a
27 Shareholders’ Agreement that remains under seal—met this standard. See id. at 5, 7. However,
1 narrowly tailored, as required by the Northern District of California’s Civil Local Rules, and
2 accordingly denied LIV Golf’s requests to maintain those documents under seal. See id. at 7–31.
3 LIV Golf no longer sought sealing of 5 of the 59 discovery-related documents. See id. at 11, 13,
4 17, 22–23. With respect to another 5 of the 59 documents, LIV Golf no longer sought sealing
5 except to redact email addresses for privacy. See Order Re Unsealing 16, 19, 23–24. The Court
6 granted LIV Golf’s requests to maintain under seal the remaining 14 discovery-related documents,
7 although it requested additional statements with respect to 3 of those 14 documents. See id. at 13,
8 28, 31, 34–35.
9 2. Counterclaim Documents
10 The Court found the 4 documents related to PGA Tour’s counterclaim were subject to the
11 compelling reasons standard for sealing under the common law and the substantial interest in
12 privacy standard under the First Amendment, and that LIV Golf had shown the four documents
13 met both standards. See id. at 32–33. The Court denied LIV Golf’s sealing request for 1
14 document for lack of sufficient tailoring, and granted LIV Golf’s request to maintain under seal
15 the other 3 documents. See id. at 33–34.
16 3. Permission to File Renewed Administrative Motion
17 The Order Regarding Unsealing permitted LIV Golf to file an administrative motion to
18 maintain under seal any document for which the Court denied its sealing request due to
19 insufficient tailoring. See id. at 35. The order also permitted LIV Golf to include in such an
20 administrative motion its additional statements regarding the three discovery-related documents
21 for which the Court had requested or permitted clarification. See id. at 34–35. Lastly, the order
22 required LIV Golf to file on the public docket, with the appropriate redactions (if any), all
23 documents not included in an administrative motion to maintain under seal. See id. at 35.
24 E. LIV Golf’s Renewed Administrative Motion to Maintain Under Seal
25 On October 20, 2023, LIV Golf filed the instant Motion. See Mot. The Motion requests
26 maintenance under seal, with additional proposed tailoring, for the 35 discovery-related
27 documents and single counterclaim document that the Court found insufficiently tailored. See
1 clarifying statements regarding the 3 discovery-related documents identified by the Court in the
2 Order Regarding Unsealing for further response, so that a total of 39 documents are at issue in the
3 Motion. See id. at 23–26. No party or non-party filed a response to the Motion.
4 II. LEGAL STANDARD
5 A. Federal Common Law
6 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
7 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
8 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
9 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the
10 starting point,” id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.
11 2003)), and a party opposing a motion to unseal judicial records bears the burden of overcoming
12 the presumption. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–98 (9th
13 Cir. 2016) (reviewing standards to file under seal borne by party seeking sealing in evaluating
14 nonparty intervenor’s motion to unseal document).
15 Parties seeking to maintain under seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more
16 than tangentially related to the merits of a case,” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101, must show
17 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of
18 access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal
19 quotation marks and citation omitted). However, the strong presumption of public access does not
20 apply to judicial records relating to motions that are not related, or are only tangentially related, to
21 the merits of a case. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179
22 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive
23 motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the
24 underlying cause of action.”). Where such records are at issue, a party opposing unsealing “need
25 only satisfy the less exacting ‘good cause’ standard.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097.
26 B. First Amendment
27 The First Amendment provides a right of access to various types of judicial records. See
1 and logic” test to evaluate “the institutional value of public access to judicial proceedings and
2 records to determine whether the First Amendment provides a presumption of access.” Id. “To
3 determine whether a First Amendment right of access attaches to a type of judicial proceeding or
4 record, we consider (1) whether that proceeding or record ‘ha[s] historically been open to the press
5 and general public’ and (2) ‘whether public access plays a significant positive role in the
6 functioning of the particular [governmental] process in question.’” Id. (quoting Press-Enter. Co.
7 v. Super. Ct., 478 U.S. 1, 8 (1986)).
8 C. Civil Local Rules
9 The Local Rules of this Court additionally require that all requests to seal be “narrowly
10 tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). That is, the sealing motion
11 must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a
12 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that
13 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive
14 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Id. at 79-5(c)(1).
15 III. DISCUSSION
16 The Court has previously determined that each document at issue in LIV Golf’s Motion
17 meets its respective standard for sealing, whether good cause, see Order Re Unsealing 5–7, or
18 compelling reasons and substantial interest in privacy, see id. at 32–33. Accordingly, the Court
19 need only determine whether LIV Golf’s proposed redactions are “narrowly tailored to seek
20 sealing only of sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a).
21 The Court has reviewed the proposed redactions for each of the 39 documents at issue in
22 the Motion. LIV Golf has tailored and further clarified its redaction requests pursuant to the
23 Court’s statements in the Order Regarding Unsealing. The Court finds the proposed redactions to
24 be narrowly tailored in accordance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(a), and accordingly GRANTS the
25 Motion, as described in the chart below.
26
27
Document Public ECF No. / LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning
1
(Sealed ECF No.) Redaction
2 Requests
3 1 February 9, 2023 380 / 13:20–14:11 GRANTED. Contains confidential
Order Granting (265, 499- 2) 15:3–9 information regarding
4 PGA Tour’s 15:11–16:17 LIV Golf’s formation
Motion to 23:11–18 and strategic launch
5
Compel and 25:20–25 plans; financials; internal
6 Denying PIF & 26:1–7 decisionmaking
HE’s Motions to 26:9–11 processes; negotiations
7 Quash 26:17–21 with players, agents, and
36:21–24 sponsors; and a
8
36:28–37:2 Shareholders’
37:28 38:1. Agreement that remains
9
under seal, as found by
10 the Court. The sealing is
narrowly tailored to
11 confidential information.
12
2 Ex. 2 to 148-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains LIV Golf’s
13 Declaration of (147-4, 499-9) portions. confidential financial
Brook Dooley in information and
14 Support of PGA projections, which the
Tour’s Motion to Court has found warrants
15 Compel PIF & sealing under the good
HE’s Compliance cause standard. The
16
with Subpoena sealing is narrowly
17 tailored to confidential
information.
18
3 Ex. 14 to 148-3 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains LIV Golf’s
19 Declaration of (147-5, 499-10) portions. confidential business
Brook Dooley in strategy information,
20
Support of PGA which the Court has
21 Tour’s Motion to found warrants sealing
Compel PIF & under the good cause
22 HE’s Compliance standard. The sealing is
with Subpoena narrowly tailored to
23 confidential information.
24
4 Ex. 15 to 148-3 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains LIV Golf’s
25 Declaration of (147-6, 499-11) portions. confidential business
Brook Dooley in information, including
26 Support of PGA investor involvement in
Tour’s Motion to internal decision making,
27
Compel PIF & which the Court has
Document Public ECF No. / LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning
1
(Sealed ECF No.) Redaction
2 Requests
3 with Subpoena under the good cause
standard. The sealing is
4 narrowly tailored to
confidential information.
5
6 5 Ex. 16 to 148-3 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains LIV Golf’s
Declaration of (147-7, 499-12) portions. confidential financial
7 Brook Dooley in information and
Support of PGA projections, which the
8 Tour’s Motion to Court has found warrants
Compel PIF & sealing under the good
9 HE’s Compliance cause standard. The
10 with Subpoena sealing is narrowly
tailored to confidential
11 information.
12 6 Ex. 17 to 148-3 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains LIV Golf’s
Declaration of (147-8, 499-13) portions on confidential business
13 Brook Dooley in page 2. strategies and internal
Support of PGA decision making
14 Tour’s Motion to processes, which the
15 Compel PIF & Court has found warrants
HE’s Compliance sealing under the good
16 with Subpoena cause standard. The
sealing is narrowly
17 tailored to confidential
information.
18
7 Ex. 40 to 148-5 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains LIV Golf’s
19 Declaration of (147-12, 499-17) portions. confidential information
20 Brook Dooley in about internal decision-
Support of PGA making processes and
21 Tour’s Motion to investor involvement in
Compel PIF & those processes, which the
22 HE’s Compliance Court found warrants
with Subpoena sealing under the good
23 cause standard. The
sealing is narrowly
24 tailored to confidential
information.
25
26 8 Ex. 45 to 148-6 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains LIV Golf’s
Declaration of (147-13, 499-18) portions. confidential information
27 Brook Dooley in about player recruitment
strategy and plans, which
Document Public ECF No. / LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning
1
(Sealed ECF No.) Redaction
2 Requests
3 Compel PIF & sealing under the good
HE’s Compliance cause standard. The
4 with Subpoena sealing is narrowly
tailored to confidential
5 information.
6
9 Ex. 1 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains LIV Golf’s
7 Declaration of (168-1, 499-24) portions. confidential information
Sophie Hood in regarding LIV Golf’s
8 Support of PGA business strategies, which
Tour’s Reply re the Court found warrants
9 Motion to sealing under the good
10 C Oo pm pop se itl ia on nd t
o
c sea au ls ie n gs t ia sn nd aa rr rd o. w T lyh e
11 Motion to Quash tailored to confidential
information.
12
10 Ex. 2 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains LIV Golf’s
13 Declaration of (168-2, 499-25) portions. confidential LIV financial
Sophie Hood in information and internal
14 Support of PGA decision making
Tour’s Reply re processes, which the
15 Motion to Court found warrants
16 Compel and sealing under the good
Opposition to cause standard. The
17 Motion to Quash sealing is narrowly
tailored to confidential
18 information.
19 11 Ex. 3 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
Declaration of (168-3, 499-26) portions. information regarding
20 Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s media strategy
Support of PGA and partners, which the
21
Tour’s Reply re Court found warrants
22 Motion to Compel sealing under the good
and Opposition to cause standard. The
23 Motion to Quash sealing is narrowly
tailored to confidential
24 information.
25
12 Ex. 4 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
Declaration of (168- 4, 499-27) portions. information regarding
26
Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s media strategy
27 Support of PGA and internal decision-
Tour’s Reply re making, which the Court
Document Public ECF No. / LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning
1
(Sealed ECF No.) Redaction
2 Requests
3 and Opposition to under the good cause
Motion to Quash standard. The sealing is
4 narrowly tailored to
confidential information.
5
6 13 Ex. 6 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
Declaration of (168-6, 499-30) portions. information regarding
7 Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s investor
Support of PGA involvement in its
8 Tour’s Reply re decision-making
Motion to Compel processes, which the
9 and Opposition to Court found warrants
Motion to Quash sealing under the good
10 cause standard. The
sealing is narrowly
11
tailored to confidential
12 information.
13 14 Ex. 8 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
Declaration of (168- 8, 499-32) portions. information regarding
14 Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s investor
Support of PGA involvement in its
15 Tour’s Reply re decision-making
Motion to Compel processes, which the
16
and Opposition to Court found warrants
17 Motion to Quash sealing under the good
cause standard. The
18 sealing is narrowly
tailored to confidential
19 information.
20 15 Ex. 9 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
Declaration of (168-9, 499-33) portions. information regarding
21
Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s investor
22 Support of PGA involvement in its
Tour’s Reply re decision-making
23 Motion to Compel processes, which the
and Opposition to Court found warrants
24 Motion to Quash sealing under the good
cause standard. The
25 sealing is narrowly
tailored to confidential
26
information.
27
16 Ex. 10 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
Document Public ECF No. / LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning
1
(Sealed ECF No.) Redaction
2 Requests
3 Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s investor
Support of PGA involvement in its
4 Tour’s Reply re decision-making
Motion to Compel processes, which the
5 and Opposition to Court found warrants
Motion to Quash sealing under the good
6
cause standard. The
7 sealing is narrowly
tailored to confidential
8 information.
9 17 Ex. 11 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
Declaration of (168-11, 499-35) portions. information regarding
10 Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s investor
Support of PGA involvement in its
11
Tour’s Reply re decision-making
12 Motion to Compel processes, which the
and Opposition to Court found warrants
13 Motion to Quash sealing under the good
cause standard. The
14 sealing is narrowly
tailored to confidential
15 information.
16
18 Ex. 13 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
17 Declaration of (168-13, 500-1) portions. information regarding
Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s confidential
18 Support of PGA negotiations, which the
Tour’s Reply re Court found warrants
19 Motion to Compel sealing under the good
and Opposition to cause standard. The
20 Motion to Quash sealing is narrowly
tailored to confidential
21
information.
22
19 Ex. 15 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
23 Declaration of (168-15, 500-4) portions. information regarding
Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s confidential
24 Support of PGA negotiations, which the
Tour’s Reply re Court found warrants
25 Motion to Compel sealing under the good
and Opposition to cause standard. The
26
Motion to Quash sealing is narrowly
27 tailored to confidential
information.
Document Public ECF No. / LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning
1
(Sealed ECF No.) Redaction
2 Requests
3 20 Ex. 16 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
Declaration of (168-16, 500-15) portions. information regarding
4 Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s confidential
Support of PGA negotiations, which the
5 Tour’s Reply re Court found warrants
Motion to Compel sealing under the good
6
and Opposition to cause standard. The
7 Motion to Quash sealing is narrowly
tailored to confidential
8 information.
9 21 Ex. 17 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
Declaration of (168-17, 500-6) portions. information regarding
10 Sophie Hood in LIV’s confidential
Support of PGA negotiations, which the
11
Tour’s Reply re Court found warrants
12 Motion to Compel sealing under the good
and Opposition to cause standard. The
13 Motion to Quash sealing is narrowly
tailored to confidential
14 information.
15 22 Ex. 18 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
Declaration of (168-18, 500-7) portions. information regarding
16
Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s player
17 Support of PGA negotiations and internal
Tour’s Reply re decision making
18 Motion to Compel processes, which the
and Opposition to Court found warrants
19 Motion to Quash sealing under the good
cause standard. The
20 sealing is narrowly
tailored to confidential
21
information.
22
23 Ex. 19 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
23 Declaration (168-19, 500-8) portions. information regarding
of Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s player
24 Support of PGA negotiations and internal
Tour’s Reply re decision making
25 Motion to Compel processes, which the
and Opposition to Court found warrants
26
Motion to Quash sealing under the good
27 cause standard. The
sealing is narrowly
Document Public ECF No. / LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning
1
(Sealed ECF No.) Redaction
2 Requests
3 tailored to confidential
information.
4
5
24 Ex. 22 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
6 Declaration of (168-22, 500-11) portions. information regarding
Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s LIV’s
7 Support of PGA negotiations with specific
Tour’s Reply re sponsors, which the Court
8 Motion to Compel found warrants sealing
and Opposition to under the good cause
9 Motion to Quash standard. The sealing is
narrowly tailored to
10 confidential information.
11
25 Ex. 25 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
12 Declaration of (168-25, 500-14) portions. information regarding
Sophie Hood in LIV’s detailed financial
13 Support of PGA data and internal decision
Tour’s Reply re making, which the Court
14 Motion to Compel found warrants sealing
and Opposition to under the good cause
15 Motion to Quash standard. The sealing is
narrowly tailored to
16
confidential information.
17
26 Ex. 26 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains LIV Golf’s
18 Declaration of (168-26, 500-15) portions. business and marketing
Sophie Hood in strategies, which the
19 Support of PGA Court found warrants
Tour’s Reply re sealing under the good
20 Motion to Compel cause standard. The
and Opposition to sealing is narrowly
21
Motion to Quash tailored to confidential
22 information.
23 27 Ex. 30 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains LIV Golf’s
Declaration of (168-30, 500-21) portions. confidential information
24 Sophie Hood in investor involvement in
Support of PGA its internal decision-
25
Tour’s Reply re making processes, which
Motion to Compel the Court found warrants
26
and Opposition to sealing under the good
27 Motion to Quash cause standard. The
sealing is narrowly
Document Public ECF No. / LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning
1
(Sealed ECF No.) Redaction
2 Requests
3 tailored to confidential
information.
4
28 Ex. 31 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
5
Declaration of (168-31, 500-22) portions. information about LIV
6 Sophie Hood in Golf’s work with specific
Support of PGA consultants, which the
7 Tour’s Reply re Court found warrants
Motion to Compel sealing under the good
8 and Opposition to cause standard. The
Motion to Quash sealing is narrowly
9 tailored to confidential
information.
10
11 29 Ex. 32 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
Declaration of (168-32, 500-23) portions. information about LIV
12 Sophie Hood in Golf’s work with specific
Support of PGA consultants, which the
13 Tour’s Reply re Court found warrants
Motion to Compel sealing under the good
14 and Opposition to cause standard. The
Motion to Quash sealing is narrowly
15 tailored to confidential
information.
16
17 30 Ex. 33 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
Declaration of (168-33, 500-24) portions. information about LIV
18 Sophie Hood in Golf’s investors’
Support of PGA involvement in decision-
19 Tour’s Reply re making, which the Court
Motion to Compel found warrants sealing
20 and Opposition to under the good cause
Motion to Quash standard. The sealing is
21
narrowly tailored to
22 confidential information.
23 31 Ex. 34 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
Declaration of (168-34, 500-25) portions. information about LIV
24 Sophie Hood in Golf’s recruitment of
Support of PGA sponsors and investor
25
Tour’s Reply re involvement in LIV
Motion to Compel decision making, which
26
and Opposition to the Court found warrants
27 Motion to Quash sealing under the good
cause standard. The
Document Public ECF No. / LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning
1
(Sealed ECF No.) Redaction
2 Requests
3 tailored to confidential
information.
4
32 Ex. 35 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
5
Declaration of (168-35, 500-26) portions. information about LIV
6 Sophie Hood in Golf’s recruitment of
Support of PGA sponsors and investor
7 Tour’s Reply re involvement in LIV
Motion to Compel decision making, which
8 and Opposition to the Court found warrants
Motion to Quash sealing under the good
9 cause standard. The
sealing is narrowly
10 tailored to confidential
information.
11
12 33 Ex. 36 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
Declaration of (168-36, 500-27) portions. information about LIV
13 Sophie Hood in Golf’s negotiations with
Support of PGA specific players and its
14 Tour’s Reply re internal decision- making,
Motion to Compel which the Court found
15 and Opposition to warrants sealing under the
Motion to Quash good cause standard. The
16
sealing is narrowly
17 tailored to confidential
information.
18
34 Ex. 44 to 169-3 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
19 Declaration (168- portions. information about LIV
of Sophie Hood in 38, 500-29) Golf’s business
20 Support of PGA plans, financials, and
Tour’s Reply re recruitment efforts, which
21
Motion to Compel the Court found warrants
22 and Opposition to sealing under the good
Motion to Quash cause standard. The
23 sealing is narrowly
tailored to confidential
24 information.
25
26
35 PGA Tour’s 224-1 / Slides: GRANTED The slides at issue quote
27
Presentation made (223-1, 500-34) and excerpt documents
Document Public ECF No. / LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning
1
(Sealed ECF No.) Redaction
2 Requests
3 2023 hearing on 8 determined warrants
PGA Tour’s 9 sealing, as stated in this
4 Motion to Compel 10 Order.
PIF & HE’s 11
5 Compliance with 12
Subpoena 13
6
14
7 15
16
8 17
18
9 19
20
10 21
22
11
28
12 29
32
13 39
36 Ex. C to PGA 238-4 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential
14 Tour’s Motion for (237- 3, 499-5) portions. information about LIV
Leave to Amend Golf’s recruitment of
15 Counterclaim players, which the Court
found warrants sealing
16
under the good cause
standard. The sealing is
17
narrowly tailored to
18 confidential information.
19 37 PGA Tour’s Reply 169 / 3:10–13 GRANTED The Court has previously
in Support of its (168-39, 499-23) 3:14–17 granted the majority of
20 Motion to Compel 3:18 this sealing. See ECF No.
PIF & HE’s 3:22–25 501 at 14-15. The Court
21
Compliance with 4:2–6 grants sealing for line
Subpoena and 4:6–8 8:22-23, which implicates
22
Opposition to PIF 4:8–9 LIV’s confidential
23 & HE’s Motion to 4:11 business information and
Quash 4:14 internal decision-making
24 4:15 processes.
4:16
25 4:17
4:18–19
26 4:19–20
4:20–22
27
4:24–25
Document Public ECF No. / LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning
1
(Sealed ECF No.) Redaction
2 Requests
3 5:8–9
5:9–13
4 5:16
5:18–21
5 6:4–5
6:10–13
6
6:14–15
7 6:16–18
6:22–26
8 8:22–23
8:24–25
9 8:25–26
8:26–28
10 8:28–9:1
10:17–18
11
10:24–25
12 11:26
11:27–28
13 11:28–12:2
12:3–4
14 12:7–9
12:11
15 12:14–16
13:07
16
13:24–25
13:26–27
17
13:27–28
18 13:28
13:28–14:1
19 14:1–2
14:3–4
20 16:14–16
18:22–24.
21
38 PIF & HE Reply 173 / 3:8–15 GRANTED The Court has previously
22
in Support of (172-2, 500-31) 3:17-18 granted sealing. See ECF
23 Motion to Quash 6:5–9 No. 501 at 28.
6:11–12
24 7:5–11
7:27–28.
25
39 PGA Tour’s 322 / 2:26–3:1 GRANTED The Court has previously
26
Opposition to PIF (321-1, 500-36) 3:2 granted most of this
& HE’s Motion 3:10–14 sealing. See ECF No. 501
27
for De Novo 3:16–19 at 31. The Court grants
1 Document Public ECF No./ LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning
(Sealed ECF No.) Redaction
2 Requests
3 Review of 4:4-7 7:13-14; 10:17-18;
February 9, 2023 4:11-27 10:26—27; and 11:3-4,
4 Order 5:1-10 which contain
7:13-14 confidential information
5 10:17-18 regarding LIV’s business
6 10:21—23 strategy and investor
10:26-27 involvement in decision
7 11:3-4. making, which the Court
finds warrants
8 sealing under the good
cause standard.
9
IV. ORDER
10
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
11
1. LIV Golf’s Renewed Administrative Motion to Seal is GRANTED. Public
12
versions of the 39 documents addressed in this order, with the redactions proposed
13
= by LIV Golf and approved of by the Court, are available at ECF No. 505. No
14
further action is required of LIV Golf with respect to these documents.
15
2. Within one week of the entry of this order, LIV Golf shall file on the public docket
16
the 10 documents addressed in the Order Regarding Unsealing for which LIV Golf
17
= no longer sought sealing, or sought sealing only for email addresses, in accordance
Z 18
with the redactions (if any) approved by the Court. The 10 documents at issue are
19
addressed at rows 9, 10, 14, 20, 22, 27, 29, 39, 42, and 43 of the Order Regarding
20
Unsealing.
21 . . . .
3. This order completes the resolution of NYT’s motion to intervene and unseal and
22
LIV Golf’s corresponding motions to maintain under seal.
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
Dated: November 8, 2023
27 eth Labson Freeman
38 United States District Judge