Jones v. PGA Tour, Inc.
Jones v. PGA Tour, Inc.
2023 WL 3570000 (N.D. Cal. 2023)
May 18, 2023
Freeman, Beth L., United States District Judge
Summary
The court granted two administrative motions to seal certain materials submitted by the parties in a motion to bifurcate trial. The materials contained confidential business information and competitive strategies, and the court determined that there was good cause to seal them to prevent harm to the parties' businesses.
Additional Decisions
Matt JONES, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
PGA TOUR, INC., Defendant
v.
PGA TOUR, INC., Defendant
Case No. 22-cv-04486-BLF
United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
Signed May 18, 2023
Counsel
Austin Van Schwing, Rachel S. Brass, Lauren Dansey, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA, Robert C. Walters, Robert C. Walters, PC, Dallas, TX, Dominic Surprenant, John B. Quinn, Kevin Yoshiwo Teruya, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, John Bash, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Austin, TX, Joshua Lipton, Kristen Ceara Limarzi, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, Robert P. Feldman, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, Rodney Joseph Stone, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Russell Harris Falconer, Scott Hvidt, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs Matt Jones, Bryson DeChambeau.Austin Van Schwing, Rachel S. Brass, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA, Dominic Surprenant, John B. Quinn, Kevin Yoshiwo Teruya, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, John Bash, Pro Hac Vice, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Austin, TX, Robert P. Feldman, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, Robert C. Walters, Russell Harris Falconer, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dallas, TX, Rodney Joseph Stone, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff LIV Golf Inc.
Brook Dooley, David Jason Silbert, Elliot Remsen Peters, Eric H. MacMichael, Eric K. Phung, John Watkins Keker, Leo L. Lam, Nicholas Samuel Goldberg, Nicholas David Marais, Robert Adam Lauridsen, Sophie Anderson Hood, Thomas Edward Gorman, Daniel E. Jackson, Franco Emilio Muzzio, Imara McMillan, Maile Nell Yeats-Rowe, Nicholas Reiss Green, Stephanie Jill Goldberg, Taylor L. Reeves, Victor T. Chiu, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco, CA, Adam Gabriel Kochman, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, New York, NY, Anthony J. Dreyer, Karen Hoffman Lent, Matthew M. Martino, Pro Hac Vice, Michael William Folger, Pro Hac Vice, Zachary Charles David Siegler, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY, Charles F. Rule, Rule Garza Howley LLP, Washington DC, DC, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, Pro Hac Vice, Stevensville, MI, for Defendant.
Freeman, Beth L., United States District Judge
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED WITH BRIEFING ON MOTION TO BIFURCATE
[Re: ECF Nos. 332, 374]
*1 Before the Court are two administrative motions to consider whether another party's material should be sealed. Both concern materials submitted with briefing on Plaintiffs motion to bifurcate.
The first motion was submitted by Plaintiffs. The motion asks the court to consider whether portions of Plaintiffs' Motion to Bifurcate and certain exhibits submitted with the Motion to Bifurcate should be sealed on the ground that those materials were designated as confidential by Defendant PGA Tour, Inc. (the “TOUR”) and non-party Clout Public Affairs, LLC. See Plfs. Mot., ECF No. 332. The TOUR has submitted a statement in support of sealing. See TOUR Statement, ECF No. 346. Clout has not submitted a statement in support of sealing.
The second motion was submitted by the TOUR. The motion asks the court to consider whether portions of the TOUR's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Bifurcate and certain exhibits submitted with the Opposition should be sealed on the ground that those materials were designated as confidential by Plaintiff LIV Golf, Inc. See TOUR Mot., ECF No. 374. LIV has submitted a statement in support of sealing. See LIV Statement, ECF No. 397.
For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs' administrative motion (ECF No. 332) is GRANTED and the TOUR's administrative motion (ECF No. 374) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’ ” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097.
Under this Court's Civil Local Rules, a party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a statement identifying the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing, the injury that will result if sealing is denied, and why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). A supporting declaration shall be submitted if necessary. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). Finally, the moving party must submit “a proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material[.]” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
Where the moving party requests sealing of material that has been designated confidential by another party, the designating party has the burden to establish that the material should be sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)
II. DISCUSSION
The good cause standard applies here because the sealing request relates to briefing on a motion to bifurcate trial, which is only tangentially related to the merits of the case. Cf. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097.
*2 Courts in this Circuit have held that confidential business information in the form of “license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. Exeltis USA Inc., 2020 WL 2838812, at *1; see also In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing is warranted to prevent competitors from “gaining insight into the parties' business model and strategy”); In re Hydroxycut Mktg. & Sales Pracs. Litig., No. 09MD2087 BTM AJB, 2011 WL 864897 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2011) (finding compelling reasons to seal “e-mails which reveal business and marketing strategy”). Such information is therefore likewise sealable under the “less exacting” good cause standard.
The TOUR has demonstrated that good cause to seal the material it seeks to seal. The TOUR requests to seal communications concerning business strategy, competitively sensitive business information about TOUR operations and corporate decision making, characterizations of communications between TOUR executives and retained consultants strategizing regarding competitive issues, and analysis and work product provided by retained consultants on competitive issues. TOUR Statement 6 (citing Shetty Decl. ¶¶ 3-11, ECF No. 346-1). The TOUR's Deputy General Counsel explains in her declaration the injury the TOUR will suffer if sealing is denied. For example, Ms. Shetty explains that disclosure of certain materials would cause the TOUR competitive harm by revealing internal strategy and decision-making processes. Shetty Decl. ¶ 4. The Court finds that the TOUR's statement and Ms. Shetty's declaration set forth good cause to seal the material the TOUR requests to seal.
LIV has also demonstrated good cause to seal the material it seeks to seal. LIV seeks to seal documents describing plans and strategy for LIV's formation, competitively sensitive business communications, and documents concerning corporate governance and decision making. See Davidson Decl. ¶¶ 2-12, ECF No. 1. LIV provides a declaration setting forth the injuries LIV will suffer if sealing is denied. For example, LIV's declarant, Gary Davidson, explains that disclosure of certain materials would allow LIV's competitors to counter LIV's business strategy and would hamper LIV's ability to engage in future negotiations. See id. ¶ 5. The Court finds that LIV's statement and Mr. Davidson's declaration set forth good cause to seal the material LIV requests to seal.
The Court's rulings as to specific documents are set forth below.
III. ORDER
*3 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. LIV's Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should be Sealed (ECF No. 332), as supported by the TOUR's Statement (ECF No. 346), is GRANTED as set forth herein.
2. The TOUR's Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should be Sealed (ECF No. 374), as supported by LIV's Statement (ECF No. 397), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth herein.