The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
----oo0oo----
11
12
SHANNON RAY, KHALA TAYLOR, PETER No. 1:23-cv-00425 WBS CSK
13 ROBINSON, KATHERINE SEBANNE, and
RUDY BARAJAS, Individually and
14 on Behalf of Hall Those
Similarly Situated, ORDER RE: REQUEST TO SEAL
15
Plaintiffs,
16
v.
17
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
18 ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated
association,
19
Defendant.
20
21
----oo0oo----
22
Plaintiffs have filed a request to seal in connection
23
with their preliminary approval of a class action settlement,
24
seeking to redact the settlement agreement’s threshold percentage
25
of opt-outs needed to trigger the agreement’s termination clause.
26
(Docket No. 158.)
27
A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the
28
1 burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public
2
access. See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
3
1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The party must “articulate
4
compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that
5
outweigh the general history of access and the public policies
6
favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding
7
the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (citation omitted). In
8
ruling on a motion to seal, the court must balance the competing
9
interests of the public and the party seeking to keep records
10
secret. See id. at 1179.
11
As other courts have explained, a settlement
12
agreement’s opt-out threshold for termination is likely “not
13
important to any individual class members’ decision to either
14
remain in or opt out of the class,” while public revelation of
15
that number raises a “potential for abuse” by so-called
16
“professional objectors” (i.e., “attorneys for class members who
17
extort additional payments from the parties in exchange for not
18
delaying or tanking the whole settlement”). See Friedman v.
19
Guthy-Renker, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-06009 ODW AGR 2016 WL 5402170, at
20
*2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2016); see also, e.g., In re Lyft Inc.
21
Sec. Litig., No. 19-CV-02690 HSG, 2023 WL 2960006, at *2 (N.D.
22
Cal. Mar. 16, 2023); In re Yahoo! Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 17-cv-
23
00373-LHK, 2018 WL 11349976, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2018);
24
Thomas v. Magnachip Semiconductor Corp., No. 14-cv-01160 JST,
25
2016 WL 3879193, at *7 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2016). There are
26
therefore compelling reasons to grant plaintiffs’ request.
27
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ request to
28
ee ene ene non OE I IE I OE EO
seal (Docket No. 158) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. The
redacted version of the document has already been filed on the
publicly available docket. (See Docket No. 159-1 at 25.)
Defendants shall file the unredacted version of the settlement
° agreement under seal within five days.
° Dated: February 5, 2026 he theo A ie
| WILLIAM B. SHUBB
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28