AND NOW, this 5th day of June, 2020, in accordance with the Honorable Edward G. Smith’s February 14, 2020 Order (Doc. No. 42) referring all discovery disputes in this case to the undersigned, as well as Judge Smith’s Orders dated May 19, 2020 and June 1, 2020 (Doc. Nos. 69, 79) referring the pending motions at Doc. Nos. 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, and 76, and their accompanying responses, to the undersigned, and upon consideration of (1) Plaintiff Martin Nothstein’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Portions of His Brief in Support of His Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Certain Exhibits Attached Thereto and His Counter-Statement of Material Facts (Doc. No. 62); (2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Production of Unredacted Documents (Doc. No. 63); (3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal His Motion to Compel Unredacted Documents and Certain Exhibits Attached Thereto (Doc. No. 64); (4) Defendant USA Cycling Inc.’s (“USA Cycling”) Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Opposition Papers, to Enforce the Parties’ Protective Orders, and for Sanctions (Doc. No. 66); (5) USA Cycling’s Motion to File Under Seal Portions of its Response to Plaintiff’s Counter-Statement of Material Facts and Exhibit A Thereto (Doc. No. 68); (6) USA Cycling’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 75); (7) USA Cycling’s Motion to File Under Seal Portions of its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 76); (8) Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to USA Cycling’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Opposition Papers, to Enforce the Parties’ Protective Orders, and for Sanctions (Doc. Nos. 77, 78); and (9) USA Cycling’s Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Opposition Papers, to Enforce the Parties’ Protective Orders, and for Sanctions (Doc. No. 81), it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Production of Unredacted Documents (Doc. No. 63) is DENIED. The undersigned finds that the highly sensitive nature of this information, the interest in protecting the anonymity of individuals who reported the alleged sexual abuse on the part of Plaintiff, as well as the victims of Plaintiff’s alleged conduct, far outweighs the marginal relevance that the identity of these individuals may have on Plaintiff’s ability to prove his claims against USA Cycling, including any alleged malice on the part of USA Cycling. Accordingly, redactions necessary to protect the identity of these individuals is proper.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Portions of His Brief in Support of His Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Certain Exhibits Attached Thereto and His Counter-Statement of Material Facts (Doc. No. 62) and Motion for Leave to File Under Seal His Motion to Compel Unredacted Documents and Certain Exhibits Attached Thereto (Doc. No. 64) are GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to File Under Seal are granted, except that any redactions protecting the anonymity of alleged victims and individuals who reported the alleged sexual abuse on the part of Plaintiff, discussed supra in Paragraph 1 of this Order, shall remain redacted in all filings, whether public or under seal.

3. USA Cycling’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Opposition Papers, to Enforce the Parties’ Protective Orders, and for Sanctions (Doc. No. 66) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The undersigned finds that USA Cycling’s claw back of the identity of a reporter of alleged sexual abuse that was inadvertently disclosed during discovery was proper. To the extent any of Plaintiff’s filings reference the properly clawed-back identity of the reporter, Plaintiff is ordered to refile them without any reference to the inadvertently disclosed information and to refrain from using or disclosing the foregoing information in any future filings. Pursuant to Judge Smith’s May 19, 2020 Order referring USA Cycling’s request for sanctions to the undersigned for a certification of facts (Doc. No. 69), and having considered the parties’ briefing, the undersigned does not consider Plaintiff’s conduct to constitute civil contempt and consequently declines to certify facts warranting holding Plaintiff in civil contempt. However, in light of the undersigned’s determination that redactions made to protect the identity of alleged victims and individuals who reported alleged sexual abuse on the part of Plaintiff are proper, any disclosure of that information in future filings may warrant certifying facts to Judge Smith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B) to support a finding of civil contempt.

4. USA Cycling’s Motion to File Under Seal Portions of its Response to Plaintiff’s CounterStatement of Material Facts and Exhibit A Thereto (Doc. No. 67-1) (Doc. No. 68) and Motion to File Under Seal Portions of its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 76) are GRANTED.

BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Marilyn Heffley 

MARILYN HEFFLEY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE