Filed: Jun. 17, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 17, 2013
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL Re: Dkt. No. 792 NATHANAEL M. COUSINS, Magistrate Judge. NCAA moves to file under seal materials submitted in support of its surreply brief opposing class certification. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), the party designating material as confidential has seven days to support or oppose a motion to seal by filing a declaration with the Court. Only NCAA and the NFL Players' Association have filed declarations in support of th
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL Re: Dkt. No. 792 NATHANAEL M. COUSINS, Magistrate Judge. NCAA moves to file under seal materials submitted in support of its surreply brief opposing class certification. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), the party designating material as confidential has seven days to support or oppose a motion to seal by filing a declaration with the Court. Only NCAA and the NFL Players' Association have filed declarations in support of thi..
More
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL Re: Dkt. No. 792
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS, Magistrate Judge.
NCAA moves to file under seal materials submitted in support of its surreply brief opposing class certification. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), the party designating material as confidential has seven days to support or oppose a motion to seal by filing a declaration with the Court. Only NCAA and the NFL Players' Association have filed declarations in support of this motion to seal. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the motion.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
There is a presumption of public access to judicial records and documents. Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). "[T]he resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the public's understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events." Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citation and quotation omitted). The policy of public access "do[es] not apply with equal force to nondispositive materials." Id. Accordingly, a party seeking to file a motion to seal in connection with a nondispositive motion must show only "good cause" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). In re Midland Nat'l Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012); Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) ("In light of the weaker public interest in nondispositive materials, we apply the `good cause' standard when parties wish to keep them under seal."). Courts in this district have generally considered motions for class certification nondispositive. Rich v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 06-cv-03361 JF, 2009 WL 2168688, *1 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2009) (finding the procedural requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 not dispositive of the merits of plaintiffs' claims and applying good cause standard to motion to seal).
Sealing is appropriate only where the requesting party "establishes that the document, or portions thereof is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law." Civil L. R. 79-5(a). "[S]ources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing" often warrant protection under seal. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. But, "the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result," Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), and must make a "particularized showing of good cause with respect to any individual document," San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). "Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning" are insufficient. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). In addition, a party must "narrowly tailor" its request to sealable material only. Civil L. R. 79-5(a).
II. DISCUSSION
NCAA moves to seal portions exhibits to the declaration of Robert J. Wierenga in support of its surreply. Dkt. No. 792. NCAA has proposed some redactions that no party supports. Therefore, if the proposed redaction or sealing is not specifically addressed by the Court in the chart below, it is DENIED.
The Court has considered the assertions of good cause in the parties' declarations and ORDERS as follows:
Dkt. Material Court's Ruling Dkt. No. in
No. Support of
Sealing
790-1 ¶¶ 67-68 of Exhibit GRANTED. NCAA has shown good 793
161 to the Wierenga cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to redact
Declaration confidential damages and revenue
("Rubinfeld Surreply figures from paragraphs 67 and 68 of
Report") the Rubinfeld Surreply Report,
contained in Exhibit 161 to the
Wierenga Declaration, which the
Court has ordered sealed previously.
See Dkt. Nos. 626, 778, 817.
790-1 ¶ 95 Rubinfeld GRANTED. NCAA has shown good 793
Surreply Report cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to redact
confidential damages and revenue
figures from paragraph 95 of the
Rubinfeld Surreply Report, which the
Court has ordered sealed previously.
See Dkt. Nos. 626, 778, 817.
790-1 Footnote 111 GRANTED. NCAA has shown good 793
Rubinfeld Surreply cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to redact
Report confidential damages and revenue
figures from footnote 111 of the
Rubinfeld Surreply Report, which the
Court has ordered sealed previously.
See Dkt. Nos. 626, 778, 817.
790-1 Footnote 143 GRANTED. NCAA has shown good 793
Rubinfeld Surreply cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to redact
Report confidential damages and revenue
figures from footnote 143 of the
Rubinfeld Surreply Report, which the
Court has ordered sealed previously.
See Dkt. Nos. 626, 778, 817.
790-1 Exhibits 1A-1D GRANTED. NCAA has shown good 793
Rubinfeld Surreply cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to redact
Report confidential damages and revenue
figures from Exhibits 1A-1D to the
Rubinfeld Surreply Report, which the
Court has ordered sealed previously.
See Dkt. Nos. 626, 778, 817.
790-3 Pages 523-25 of GRANTED. NCAA has shown good 793
Exhibit 163 to the cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to redact
Declaration of Robert confidential damages and revenue
J. Wierenga figures from pages 523-25 of the
second deposition transcript of Roger
Noll, contained in Exhibit 163 to the
Wierenga Declaration, which the
Court has ordered sealed previously.
See Dkt. Nos. 626, 778, 817.
790-5 Pages 196:11-97:23 of GRANTED. The NFL Players' 803
Exhibit 165 Wierenga Association has shown good cause
Declaration under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to redact pages
196:11-97:23 of Exhibit 165, which is
the deposition of Daniel Rascher,
because it refers to material, namely
the Stiroh Report and paragraph 14 of
the Gordon declaration, that the Court
has previously ordered sealed. See
Dkt. No. 778.
790-6 Page 304 to Exhibit GRANTED. NCAA has shown good 793
166 Wierenga cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to redact
Declaration confidential damages and revenue
figures from the second deposition
transcript of Robert McCormick,
contained in Exhibit 166 to the
Wierenga Declaration, which the
Court has ordered sealed previously.
See Dkt. Nos. 626, 778, 817.
790-20 ¶ 36 of Exhibit 180 to GRANTED. The NFL Players' 803
the Wierenga Association has shown good cause
Declaration ("Stiroh under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to redact the
Reply Report") last sentence of paragraph 36 of the
Stiroh Reply Report because it refers
to material, namely paragraph 14 of
the Gordon declaration, that the Court
has previously ordered sealed. See
Dkt. No. 778.
790-20 Exhibits 2-3 Stiroh GRANTED. NCAA has shown good 793
Reply Report cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to redact
confidential damages and revenue
figures from Exhibits 2 and 3 to the
Stiroh Reply Report, contained in
Exhibit 180 to the Wierenga
Declaration, which the Court has
ordered this sealed previously. See
Dkt. Nos. 626, 778, 817.
III. CONCLUSION
In accordance with the above, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART NCAA's motion to seal materials submitted in support of its surreply brief. NCAA must re-file the exhibits supporting its surreply, redacted as ordered, within four days. Civil L. R. 79-5(e).
Any party may object to this order within fourteen days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
