Opinion
Case No. 09-cv-01967 CW (NC)
06-17-2013
IN RE NCAA STUDENT-ATHLETE NAME AND LIKENESS LICENSING LITIGATION
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 747, 782
Antitrust Plaintiffs move to file under seal materials submitted in support of their reply brief for class certification. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, NCAA, EA, CLC, and several nonparties filed declarations in support of redacting and sealing the materials. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the motion to seal.
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. BeckmanIndus., 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
Antitrust Plaintiffs move to seal portions of their reply brief, exhibits to the declaration of Sathya S. Gosselin in Support of Class Certification, portions of the Expert Report of Daniel A. Rascher in Support of Class Certification, and portions of the Reply Report on Class Certification of Roger G. Noll. Dkt. Nos. 747, 782. Antitrust Plaintiffs identified and proposed redactions to these documents which no party supports sealing. 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. No. ¦ ¦Dkt. ¦ ¦ ¦in ¦ ¦ ¦Material ¦Court's Ruling ¦ ¦ ¦No. ¦ ¦ ¦Support of¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Sealing ¦ +-------+---------------------+------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. EA has shown good ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Page 24, lines 9-11; ¦cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦redact ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Page 36, lines 21-24;¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦page 24, lines 9-11; page 36, lines ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Page 39, lines 7-14 ¦21- ¦ ¦ ¦748 ¦and ¦ ¦760 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦24; and page 39, lines 7-14, 19-20 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦19-20 of Antitrust ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦because they refer to royalty rates ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Plaintiffs' Reply ¦and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Brief ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦payment terms of licensing ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦agreements. ¦ ¦ +-------+---------------------+------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. EA asserts that these lines ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦refer to exhibits that contain ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦confidential trade secrets, the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosure of which would harm its ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦competitive standing. Lines 4-16, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Page 37, lines 4-16, ¦25- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦25-28; page 38, line ¦28 of page 37 and line 22 of page 38¦ ¦ ¦748 ¦22 ¦ ¦760 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦contain general information about ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Reply Brief ¦the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦look of EA video games, not trade ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦secrets. Nor do the citations to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦certain ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦exhibits disclose the content of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦those ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦exhibits. ¦ ¦ +-------+---------------------+------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 4 to the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. EA has shown good ¦ ¦ ¦not ¦Supplemental ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to seal¦ ¦ ¦filed ¦Declaration of Sathya¦ ¦ ¦ ¦in ¦ ¦Exhibit 4, which contains its trade ¦760; 775 ¦ ¦ ¦S. Gosselin in ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦Support ¦secrets regarding the development of¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of Class ¦the avatars in its video games. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Certification ¦ ¦ ¦ +-------+---------------------+------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. NCAA has not shown good ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to seal¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 12, which contains an email ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦between NCAA executives regarding ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦working with presidents of member ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not ¦ ¦institutions. This exhibit does not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦filed ¦Exhibit 12 Gosselin ¦reveal any trade secret, ¦ ¦ ¦in ¦ ¦confidential ¦759 ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦ ¦research, or commercial information.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦It must be filed in the public ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦record. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦References to this exhibit on page ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦12 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of Antitrust Plaintiffs' reply must ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦also ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦be public. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Dkt. No. ¦ ¦Dkt. ¦ ¦ ¦in ¦ ¦ ¦Material ¦Court's Ruling ¦ ¦ ¦No. ¦ ¦ ¦Support of¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Sealing ¦ +--------+------------------+--------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. NCAA states that public ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosure of comments on proposed ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦bylaw revisions contained in Exhibit ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦15 would harm its ability to enforce ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦its ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦bylaws on member institutions. This ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not ¦Exhibit 15 ¦document is eight years old, and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Gosselin ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦filed in¦ ¦NCAA fails to articulate what specific¦759 ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦ ¦harm an outdated document will have ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦on its current or future operations. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The exhibit must be filed in the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦public ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦record. References to this exhibit on ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦page 13 of Antitrust Plaintiffs' reply¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦must also be public. ¦ ¦ +--------+------------------+--------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. NCAA has not shown good ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to seal ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 16, which contains flow chart ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦from 2004 posing questions about the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦licensing of student-athlete names, ¦ ¦ ¦not ¦Exhibit 16 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Gosselin ¦images, and likenesses. This exhibit ¦ ¦ ¦filed in¦ ¦ ¦759 ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦does not reveal any trade secret, ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦confidential research, or commercial ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information. It must be filed in the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦public record. References to this ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦exhibit on page 13 of Antitrust ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Plaintiffs' reply must also be public.¦ ¦ +--------+------------------+--------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. NCAA has not shown good ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to seal ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 17, which contains "guiding ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦principles" articulated in 2006 for ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not ¦Exhibit 17 ¦NCAA's amateurism bylaws. This ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Gosselin ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦filed in¦ ¦exhibit does not reveal any trade ¦759 ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦ ¦secret, confidential research, or ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦commercial information. It must be ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦filed in the public record. References¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦to this exhibit on page 13 of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Antitrust ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Plaintiffs' reply must also be public.¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Dkt. No. ¦ ¦Dkt. ¦ ¦ ¦in ¦ ¦ ¦Material ¦Court's Ruling ¦ ¦ ¦No. ¦ ¦ ¦Support of¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Sealing ¦ +--------+------------------+--------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. NCAA has shown good ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to seal ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 18 as it contains information ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦about NCAA photography licenses the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not ¦ ¦disclosure of which could harm ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 18 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦filed in¦Gosselin ¦NCAA in future negotiations ¦759 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦Declaration ¦regarding the rights to photograph ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦college sporting events. Antitrust ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Plaintiffs' proposed redactions to the¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦references to this exhibit on page 13 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦their reply are GRANTED. ¦ ¦ +--------+------------------+--------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED AS REDACTED. EA has ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦shown good cause under Rule ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦26(c)(1)(G) to redact pages 237:4- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not ¦Exhibit 26 ¦238:10 of Exhibit 26, which contain ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Gosselin ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦filed in¦ ¦an offer for a royalty split in ¦760; 775 ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦ ¦negotiating a licensing agreement with¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦CLC, because disclosure would harm ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦its future ability to negotiate such ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦agreements. ¦ ¦ +--------+------------------+--------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. CLC has shown good ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to seal ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 52 because it contains ¦ ¦ ¦not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 52 ¦proposed terms for the licensing ¦ ¦ ¦filed in¦Gosselin ¦rights ¦763; 777 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦Declaration ¦to bowl games, including royalty rates¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and payment terms, the disclosure of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦which would prejudice CLC in future ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦negotiations. ¦ ¦ +--------+------------------+--------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. The portion of Exhibit 58 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦that EA seeks to redact describes the ¦ ¦ ¦not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 58 ¦attributes of its video game avatars, ¦ ¦ ¦filed in¦Gosselin ¦ ¦760; 775 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦which are listed in its video games ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦Declaration ¦and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦available online on its own website ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and others. ¦ ¦ +--------+------------------+--------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. EA has shown good ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to seal ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not ¦Exhibit 60 ¦Exhibit 60 because it contains ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Gosselin ¦detailed ¦ ¦ ¦filed in¦ ¦ ¦760 ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦analysis of the consumer market for ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦ ¦its ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦video games, which if disclosed, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦would harm its competitive standing. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Dkt. No. in¦ ¦Dkt. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Material ¦Court's Ruling ¦Support of ¦ ¦No. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Sealing ¦ +--------+-------------------+------------------------------------+-----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. EA has shown good ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not ¦ ¦cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to seal¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 61 Gosselin¦ ¦ ¦ ¦filed in¦ ¦Exhibit 61, which contains its trade¦760; 775 ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦ ¦secrets regarding the development of¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the avatars in its video games. ¦ ¦ +--------+-------------------+------------------------------------+-----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. EA has shown good ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not ¦ ¦cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to seal¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 62 Gosselin¦ ¦ ¦ ¦filed in¦ ¦Exhibit 62, which contains its trade¦760; 775 ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦ ¦secrets regarding the development of¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the avatars in its video games. ¦ ¦ +--------+-------------------+------------------------------------+-----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. EA has shown good ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not ¦ ¦cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to seal¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 63 Gosselin¦ ¦ ¦ ¦filed in¦ ¦Exhibit 63, which contains its trade¦760; 775 ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦ ¦secrets regarding the development of¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the avatars in its video games. ¦ ¦ +--------+-------------------+------------------------------------+-----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. EA has shown good ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not ¦ ¦cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to seal¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 64 Gosselin¦ ¦ ¦ ¦filed in¦ ¦Exhibit 64, which contains its trade¦760; 775 ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦ ¦secrets regarding the development of¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the avatars in its video games. ¦ ¦ +--------+-------------------+------------------------------------+-----------¦ ¦not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 68 Gosselin¦DENIED. Exhibit 68 contains the ¦ ¦ ¦filed in¦ ¦ ¦759 ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦same document as Exhibit 17. ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +--------+-------------------+------------------------------------+-----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. EA has shown good ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not ¦ ¦cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to seal¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 69 Gosselin¦ ¦ ¦ ¦filed in¦ ¦Exhibit 69, which contains its trade¦760; 775 ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦ ¦secrets regarding the development of¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the avatars in its video games. ¦ ¦ +--------+-------------------+------------------------------------+-----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED AS REDACTED. EA has ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦shown good cause to redact Exhibit ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦73 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦under Rule 26(c)(1)(G). The ¦ ¦ ¦not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 73 Gosselin¦redactions EA proposes are limited ¦ ¦ ¦filed in¦ ¦to ¦760 ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦ ¦confidential, internal discussions ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦regarding royalty rates and payment ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦terms regarding a licensing ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦agreement ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦between it, CLC, and NCAA. ¦ ¦ +--------+-------------------+------------------------------------+-----------¦ ¦not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 74 Gosselin¦DENIED. NCAA does not oppose the ¦ ¦ ¦filed in¦ ¦ ¦759 ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦public filing of this exhibit. ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Dkt. No. ¦ ¦Dkt. ¦ ¦ ¦in ¦ ¦ ¦Material ¦Court's Ruling ¦ ¦ ¦No. ¦ ¦ ¦Support of¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Sealing ¦ +--------+------------------+--------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦IN PART. Exhibit 76 is an eight-year- ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦old email chain discussing whether the¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦use of student athlete images on the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦cover of a DVD violates NCAA ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦bylaws. This is not the sort of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦competitively sensitive business ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not ¦ ¦information that would hinder ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 76 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦filed in¦Gosselin ¦NCAA's ability to negotiate future ¦759 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦Declaration ¦contracts. The exhibit also contains ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the amount of revenue generated from ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the DVD sales, which is commercially ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦sensitive and which Antitrust ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Plaintiffs must redact from the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦publicly filed version. Footnote 45 of¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Antitrust Plaintiffs' reply must not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦be ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦redacted. ¦ ¦ +--------+------------------+--------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. NCAA has not shown good ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to seal ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 77, which contains an email ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦between NCAA executives regarding ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦working with presidents of member ¦ ¦ ¦not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 77 ¦institutions. This exhibit does not ¦ ¦ ¦filed in¦Gosselin ¦ ¦759 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦reveal any trade secret, confidential ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦Declaration ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦research, or commercial information. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦It must be filed in the public record.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦References to this exhibit on page 39 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of Antitrust Plaintiffs' reply must ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦also ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦be public. ¦ ¦ +--------+------------------+--------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. CLC has shown good ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to seal ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 78 because it contains ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦proposed terms and negotiating points ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦related to a video game, including ¦ ¦ ¦not ¦Exhibit 78 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Gosselin ¦royalty rates and payment terms, the ¦ ¦ ¦filed in¦ ¦ ¦763; 777 ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦disclosure of which would prejudice ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦CLC in future negotiations. The ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦proposed redactions to references to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 78 on page 39 of Antitrust ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Plaintiffs' reply are likewise ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Dkt. No. ¦ ¦Dkt. ¦ ¦ ¦in ¦ ¦ ¦Material ¦Court's Ruling ¦ ¦ ¦No. ¦ ¦ ¦Support of¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Sealing ¦ +-------+---------------------+------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED AS REDACTED. EA has ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦shown good cause to redact Exhibit ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦79 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not ¦ ¦under Rule 26(c)(1)(G). The ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦filed ¦Exhibit 79 Gosselin ¦redactions EA proposes are limited ¦ ¦ ¦in ¦ ¦to ¦760; 775 ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦ ¦confidential discussions regarding ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦royalty rates and payment terms ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦regarding a licensing agreement ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦between it and CLC. ¦ ¦ +-------+---------------------+------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. CLC has shown good ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to seal¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits 84 and 85 because they ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦contain confidential licensing ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not ¦ ¦agreements, including royalty rates ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits 84-85 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦filed ¦ ¦and payment terms, the disclosure of¦763; 777 ¦ ¦in ¦Gosselin Declaration ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦which would prejudice CLC in future ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦negotiations. Antitrust Plaintiffs' ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦proposed redactions to references to¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦these exhibits on page 33 of their ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦reply ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦are also GRANTED. ¦ ¦ +-------+---------------------+------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. The Big Twelve ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Conference has shown good cause ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not ¦ ¦under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to seal ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits 97-98 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦filed ¦ ¦Exhibits 97 and 98, which contain ¦754 ¦ ¦in ¦Gosselin Declaration ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦broadcast agreements the public ¦ ¦ ¦ECF ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosure of which would prejudice ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the Big Twelve in future ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦negotiations. ¦ ¦ +-------+---------------------+------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. The NFL Players' ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Association has shown good cause ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¶ 10, fifth sentence ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of ¦under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to redact ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦this ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the Declaration of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦paragraph of the Rascher Report ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Daniel A. Rascher in ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦748-4 ¦ ¦because it refers to confidential ¦786 ¦ ¦ ¦Support of Class ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦revenue splits between NFL players. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Certification ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦("Rascher ¦In addition, the Court has ordered ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦this ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Report") ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information redacted. See Dkt. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Nos. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦778, 780. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Dkt. No. ¦ ¦Dkt. ¦ ¦ ¦in ¦ ¦ ¦Material ¦Court's Ruling ¦ ¦ ¦No. ¦ ¦ ¦Support of¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Sealing ¦ +-----+----------------------+-------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. The NFL Players' ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Association has shown good cause ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to redact this¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦paragraph of the Rascher Report ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¶ 16 Rascher Report, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦748-4¦ ¦because it refers to confidential ¦786 ¦ ¦ ¦last sentence ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦revenue splits between NFL players. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦In addition, the Court has ordered ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦this ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information redacted. See Dkt. Nos.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦778, 780. ¦ ¦ +-----+----------------------+-------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. Although no party ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦moves to redact paragraph 26 of the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Rascher Report, it contains ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information which the Court has ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦previously ordered sealed regarding ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¶ 26 Rascher Report ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the division of revenue between NFL ¦ ¦ ¦748-4¦(including footnote 40¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦players. See Dkt. Nos. 778, 780. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and exhibit 1) ¦The ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦NFL Players' Association has moved ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦to redact similar material from other¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦paragraphs of the Rascher Report. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦See ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Dkt. No. 786. ¦ ¦ +-----+----------------------+-------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. EA has shown good ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦redact ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the last sentence of paragraph 28 of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¶ 28 Rascher Report, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦748-4¦ ¦the Rascher Report, which contains a ¦760 ¦ ¦ ¦last sentence ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦revenue split negotiated by EA with ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the NFL Players' Association and, if ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosed, would harm EA's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦competitive standing. ¦ ¦ +-----+----------------------+-------------------------------------+----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. The NFL Players' ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Association has shown good cause ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to redact this¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦¶ 51 Rascher Report, ¦paragraph of the Rascher Report ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦748-4¦third, fourth, and ¦because it refers to confidential ¦786 ¦ ¦ ¦fifth ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦revenue splits between NFL players. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦sentences ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦In addition, the Court has ordered ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦this ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information redacted. See Dkt. Nos.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦778, 780. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Dkt. No. in¦ ¦Dkt. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Material ¦Court's Ruling ¦Support of ¦ ¦No. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Sealing ¦ +-----+---------------------+-------------------------------------+-----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. The NFL Players' ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Association has shown good cause ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Page 64, second ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to redact this¦ ¦ ¦ ¦paragraph of the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Reply ¦paragraph of the Noll Reply Report ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦748-1¦Report on Class ¦because it refers to confidential ¦786 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Certification of ¦revenue splits between NFL players. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Roger ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦In addition, the Court has ordered ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦G. Noll ¦this ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦information redacted. See Dkt. Nos.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦778-, 780. ¦ ¦ +-----+---------------------+-------------------------------------+-----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. EA states that the figures ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Antitrust Plaintiffs propose to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦redact ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 4 Noll Reply ¦from Exhibit 4 to the Noll Reply ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦748-1¦Report, Columns [c]- ¦Report are based upon confidential EA¦758; 760 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦[m] ¦revenue data, the disclosure of which¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦will harm its competitive standing, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and has shown good cause under Rule ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦26(c)(1)(G). ¦ ¦ +-----+---------------------+-------------------------------------+-----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. Despite the sheer ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦volume of these exhibits, the Court ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦was able to physically review the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits 5-70B Noll ¦courtesy copy delivered to chambers. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Reply Report, all ¦NCAA and EA state that the figures ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦columns except ¦Antitrust Plaintiffs propose to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦redact ¦758; 759; ¦ ¦748-1¦"Athletes' Share of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦from Exhibits 5-70B to the Noll Reply¦760 ¦ ¦ ¦Broadcast Revenue," ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Report are based upon confidential ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Basketball and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦revenue data, the disclosure of which¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Football ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦will harm their competitive standing,¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and have therefore shown good cause ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦to redact those figures under Rule ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦26(c)(1)(G). ¦ ¦ +-----+---------------------+-------------------------------------+-----------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. Antitrust Plaintiffs ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦propose to redact pages 3-13 of the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Noll Reply Report. NCAA, EA, and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦XOS Technologies have shown good ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦cause under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦redact ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Appendix B Noll ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the potential damages figures put ¦759; 760; ¦ ¦748-1¦Reply Report, pages ¦forth ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦3- ¦ ¦761 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦by Noll because they are based on ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦13 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦confidential financial information of¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦these parties. These damages ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦calculations are revisions on ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦calculations that the Court ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦previously ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ordered sealed. See Dkt. No. 626. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In addition, T3Media submitted a declaration in support of sealing its confidential information cited in Exhibits 4-70B of the Noll Reply Report. Dkt. No. 758. T3Media asserted that it was unable to specifically identify which parts of the report should be redacted because Antitrust Plaintiffs did not share a copy of their unredacted filing with T3Media. Consequently, the Court cannot determine which portions of the Noll Reply Report should be reviewed for T3Media's confidential material.
Noll lists documents TEM 0579-0613 among the documents he considered in creating his report. No specific references or citations to those documents are contained within the report, however. T3Media is mentioned on page 73 of the report, but no confidential information is revealed there either. Notwithstanding these hurdles, Exhibits 4-70B have been redacted, and so to the extent that T3Media's information was used in compiling the data therein, the redactions will ensure that T3Media is not competitively harmed by producing documents for a litigation to which it is not a party.
III. CONCLUSION
In accordance with the above, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Antitrust Plaintiffs' motion to seal materials submitted in support of its reply brief. Antitrust Plaintiffs must re-file their reply brief and supporting exhibits and reports, 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.
____________________
Nathanael M. Cousins
United States Magistrate Judge