Opinion
Case No. 09-cv-01967 CW (NC)
05-13-2013
IN RE NCAA STUDENT-ATHLETE NAME AND LIKENESS LICENSING LITIGATION
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 682
Defendants EA and CLC move to file under seal materials submitted in support of their opposition to Antitrust Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, defendants and 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 County 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
EA and CLC filed as Exhibit A to their motion to seal a chart identifying all materials submitted in support of their opposition that had been marked as confidential by any party, which they redacted and filed provisionally under seal. No party filed declarations in support of:
• Exhibits 5, 10, 17, 18, 37, 38, 39, 80, and 81 to the Slaughter Declaration;Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion as to those materials. As for the remaining materials, the Court has considered the assertions of good cause in the parties' declarations and ORDERS as follows:
• Paragraphs 44, 47, and 48 of the Cox Declaration;
• Paragraphs 76, 85, 99, and 113; Footnotes 53, 121, 135, 136, and 171; and Exhibits 6 and 8 to the Stiroh Report; or
• Exhibits 7 and 8 to the Drucker Declaration.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Dkt. ¦ ¦Dkt. ¦ ¦ ¦No. in ¦ ¦ ¦Material ¦Court's Ruling ¦Support¦ ¦No. ¦ ¦ ¦of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Sealing¦ +-----+-----------------------+---------------------------------------+-------¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 7 to the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration of James R.¦DENIED. NCAA, who designated this ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Slaughter in Support of¦exhibit as containing confidential ¦ ¦ ¦703-3¦EA's and CLC's ¦information, has stated that it can be ¦720 ¦ ¦ ¦Opposition to ¦made public. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Plaintiffs' Motion for ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Class Certification ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----+-----------------------+---------------------------------------+-------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦NCAA states that the two letters in ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits 12 and 13 must be sealed to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦protect the ongoing business ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits 12-13 ¦relationship between it and EA. NCAA ¦ ¦ ¦703-3¦Slaughter Declaration ¦states no reason, however, to seal the ¦720 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦enclosure of NCAA bylaws to the letter ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦in Exhibit 12. Therefore, the letter in¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 12 may be redacted, but not the¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦enclosure. Exhibit 13 may be sealed in ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦its entirety. ¦ ¦ +-----+-----------------------+---------------------------------------+-------¦ ¦ ¦¶ 12 of the Declaration¦GRANTED. CLC has stated good cause to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of Alan J. Cox in ¦redact the last two sentences of ¶ 12, ¦682, ¦ ¦690 ¦Support of EA's and ¦which contain confidential and ¦Ex. B ¦ ¦ ¦CLC's Opposition ¦commercially sensitive information, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦under Rule 26(c)(1)(G). ¦ ¦ +-----+-----------------------+---------------------------------------+-------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. EA has stated good cause to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦redact the second sentence of ¶ 15, ¦682, ¦ ¦690 ¦¶ 15 Cox Declaration ¦which contains confidential and ¦Ex. C ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦commercially sensitive information, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦under Rule 26(c)(1)(G). ¦ ¦ +-----+-----------------------+---------------------------------------+-------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. EA has stated good cause to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦redact the last sentence of ¶ 40, which¦682, ¦ ¦690 ¦¶ 40 Cox Declaration ¦contains confidential and commercially ¦Ex. C ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦sensitive information, under Rule 26(c)¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(1)(G). ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦¶¶ 79, 80, 82 Expert ¦GRANTED. CLC and the NCAA have stated good ¦682,¦ ¦ ¦Report of Lauren J. ¦cause to redact as proposed ¶¶ 79, 80, and ¦Ex. ¦ ¦684-3¦Stiroh, Ph.D. in ¦82, which contain confidential financial ¦B; ¦ ¦ ¦Support of EA's and ¦information likely to cause competitive ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦CLC's Opposition ¦harm if disclosed, under Rule 26(c)(1)(G). ¦720 ¦ +-----+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+----¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. EA has stated good cause to redact¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦as proposed ¶ 87, which reveals ¦682,¦ ¦684-3¦¶ 87 Stiroh Report ¦confidential terms of a licensing agreement¦Ex. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦between EA and the NFL and the NFL Players'¦C ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Association, under Rule 26(c)(1)(G). ¦ ¦ +-----+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+----¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. EA has stated good cause to redact¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦as proposed ¶ 92, which reveals ¦682,¦ ¦684-3¦¶ 92 Stiroh Report ¦competitively sensitive, individually ¦Ex. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦negotiated financial terms of licensing ¦C ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦agreements, under Rule 26(c)(1)(G). ¦ ¦ +-----+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+----¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Ohio Valley Conference states that ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦this footnote contains competitively ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦sensitive terms of a negotiated broadcast ¦ ¦ ¦684-3¦Footnote 59 Stiroh ¦agreement and could distort the value of ¦734 ¦ ¦ ¦Report ¦its broadcast rights if disclosed. The ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦footnote reveals no such information, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦however. In the absence of good cause to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦seal, footnote 59 must be made public. ¦ ¦ +-----+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+----¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. OVC has stated good cause to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Footnote 122 Stiroh ¦redact footnote 122, which contains terms ¦ ¦ ¦684-3¦Report ¦of a confidential, competitively sensitive ¦734 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦broadcast rights licensing agreement, under¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Rule 26(c)(1)(G). ¦ ¦ +-----+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+----¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. This footnote merely cites two ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦document numbers. No confidential or ¦682,¦ ¦684-3¦Footnote 131 Stiroh ¦commercially sensitive data is revealed in ¦Ex. ¦ ¦ ¦Report ¦this footnote, no matter what might be ¦C ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦contained in the documents. This footnote ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦must be made public. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. CLC has shown good cause to redact as¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Footnote 137 Stiroh¦proposed footnote 137, which contains ¦682,¦ ¦684-3¦Report ¦competitively sensitive information about how ¦Ex. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦CLC licenses student-athlete content, under ¦B ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Rule 26(c)(1)(G). ¦ ¦ +-----+-------------------+----------------------------------------------+----¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. EA has shown good cause to redact ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Footnote 138 Stiroh¦footnote 138, which contains confidential ¦682,¦ ¦684-3¦Report ¦information about how a nonparty evaluates the¦Ex. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦worth of student athlete merchandise, under ¦B ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Rule 26(c)(1)(G). ¦ ¦ +-----+-------------------+----------------------------------------------+----¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. EA has shown good cause to redact the¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦entirety of Exhibits 7A and 7B of the Stiroh ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Report under ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦682,¦ ¦684-3¦Exhibits 7A, 7B ¦Rule 26(c)(1)(G). These exhibits ¦Ex. ¦ ¦ ¦Stiroh Report ¦ ¦C ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦contain terms of individually negotiated ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦licensing agreements between EA and former ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦student athletes and disclosure would harm ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦EA's competitive standing. ¦ ¦ +-----+-------------------+----------------------------------------------+----¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 5, values ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(b), ¦GRANTED. NCAA has shown good cause to redact ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦as proposed the values in Exhibit 5, which ¦ ¦ ¦684-3¦(c), (d), (m), (n),¦contain commercially sensitive information the¦720 ¦ ¦ ¦(o), ¦disclosure of which will have an adverse ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦impact on the NCAA and its members, under Rule¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and (q) Stiroh ¦26(c)(1)(G). ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Report ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----+-------------------+----------------------------------------------+----¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. CLC has shown good cause to redact ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 9, column ¦column (e) of Exhibit 9, which contains ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦(e) and footnotes ¦confidential terms of licensing agreements ¦682,¦ ¦684-3¦1, 3-6, 8, 11-12, ¦entered into by formers student athletes, the ¦Ex. ¦ ¦ ¦16-17 Stiroh Report¦disclosure of which would prejudice CLC in ¦B ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦future negotiations if disclosed, under Rule ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦26(c)(1)(G). ¦ ¦ +-----+-------------------+----------------------------------------------+----¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. CLC and NCAA have shown good cause ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) to redact columns (b), ¦682,¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 11, columns¦(d), (g), and (i) of Exhibit 11 of the Stiroh ¦Ex. ¦ ¦684-3¦(b), (d), (g), and ¦Report, which disclose damages based on ¦B; ¦ ¦ ¦(i) Stiroh Report ¦payment terms of licensing agreements and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦confidential financial data of NCAA member ¦720 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦schools. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. EA has shown good cause to redact ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits 1-64 of the Schatz Declaration, which¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦contain individual agreements between the NFL ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits 1-64 to the¦Players' Association and EA regarding ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration of Jacob¦individual players and include confidential ¦682,¦ ¦698;¦Schatz in Support of¦payment terms, and in some instances, personal¦Ex. ¦ ¦700 ¦EA's and CLC's ¦information, such as phone numbers. EA ¦C ¦ ¦ ¦Opposition ¦proposes to redact only the commercially ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦sensitive payment terms and any references to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦personal information that would implicate a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦player's right to privacy. Exhibits 164 must ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦be redacted as proposed under Rule 26(c)(1). ¦ ¦ +----+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+----¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. EA has shown good cause to redact the¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦last email in the chain of emails that ¦682,¦ ¦ ¦ ¦comprise Exhibit 65 to the Schatz Declaration ¦Ex. ¦ ¦700 ¦Exhibit 65 Schatz ¦under Rule 26(c)(1)(G). The email is marked ¦C; ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦confidential, reveals the internal strategy ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and decision making process of EA's product ¦717 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦development team, and disclosure could harm ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦EA's competitive standing. ¦ ¦ +----+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+----¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. CLC's proposed redactions are limited¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits 2, 4, and ¦to the royalty rates and payment terms of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦6-9 to the ¦licensing agreements between former student ¦682,¦ ¦ ¦Declaration of ¦athletes and various licensees, which CLC ¦Ex. ¦ ¦685 ¦Michael S. Drucker ¦asserts are extremely commercially sensitive ¦B; ¦ ¦ ¦in Support of EA's ¦and would harm future negotiations if ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and CLC's Opposition¦disclosed. Antitrust plaintiffs' argument that¦741 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the information is "stale" and thus not ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦sensitive is unpersuasive. ¦ ¦ +----+--------------------+----------------------------------------------+----¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. CLC has not shown good cause to seal ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 12, which is an email from 2005 ¦682,¦ ¦685 ¦Exhibit 12 Drucker ¦discussing the basic practice of using a CLC ¦Ex. ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦license, because it has not shown how the ¦B ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦disclosure of general practices would cause it¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦competitive harm. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. CLC has ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦established good cause to seal portions of Exhibit ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦13, which is a licensing agreement between it and a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦nonparty. Terms such as Payments and Royalty ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Statement and Penalties, as well as the photocopied ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦check included in the exhibit, contain competitively ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦sensitive information that, if disclosed, would ¦682,¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 13 ¦disadvantage CLC in future negotiations. CLC has not ¦Ex. ¦ ¦685¦Drucker ¦established, however, that the majority of the ¦B; ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦agreement is confidential commercial information such¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦that the entire exhibit should be sealed. Although ¦741 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦CLC states that similar agreements have been sealed, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦similar agreements have also been redacted to protect¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦only those terms that are commercially sensitive or ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦confidential. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 645. CLC may ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦submit proposed redactions by May 17, 2013 if it ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦wishes to redact portions of Exhibit 13. ¦ ¦ +---+--------------+-----------------------------------------------------+----¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. CLC and nonparty ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Upper Deck have established good cause to redact ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration of¦paragraphs 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 of the Masherah ¦682,¦ ¦ ¦Jason Masherah¦Declaration. These paragraphs contain confidential ¦Ex. ¦ ¦691¦in Support of ¦payment terms of an individually negotiated licensing¦B; ¦ ¦ ¦EA's and CLC's¦agreement between a former student-athlete and a ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Opposition ¦nonparty. The remainder of the declaration, however, ¦739 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦does not contain information that, if disclosed, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦would harm competitive standing. It therefore must be¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦produced in the public record. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦ ¦GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. CLC and Upper Deck have¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦established good cause to seal portions of Exhibit 1, which¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦is a licensing agreement between CLC and Upper Deck. Terms ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦such as Payments and Statements, Payments, and Penalties, ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦as well as Appendix A, contain competitively sensitive ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦information that, if disclosed, would disadvantage CLC and ¦682,¦ ¦¦Exhibit 1 ¦Upper Deck in future negotiations. The parties have not ¦Ex. ¦ ¦¦Masherah ¦established, however, that the majority of the agreement is¦B; ¦ ¦¦Declaration¦confidential commercial information such that the entire ¦739 ¦ ¦¦ ¦exhibit should be sealed. Although CLC states that similar ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦agreements have been sealed, similar agreements have also ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦been redacted to protect only those terms that are ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦commercially sensitive or confidential. See, e.g., Dkt. ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦No. 645. CLC may submit proposed redactions by May 17, 2013¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦if it wishes to redact portions of Exhibit 1. ¦ ¦ ++-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+----¦ ¦¦ ¦DENIED. CLC and Upper Deck have failed to show good cause ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦for sealing Exhibit 2. None of the contracts contained ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦therein are signed, and it is not clear that they ever went¦682,¦ ¦¦Exhibit 2 ¦into effect. The Court fails to see how unsigned, stock ¦Ex. ¦ ¦¦Masherah ¦licensing agreements could provide a competitive advantage ¦B; ¦ ¦¦Declaration¦to a competitor as the parties allege. Furthermore, in the ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦allegedly unredacted, provisionally under seal version ¦739 ¦ ¦¦ ¦submitted to the Court, all names and payment terms have ¦ ¦ ¦¦ ¦already been blacked out. ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. Exhibit 3 is a list of all former ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦student-athletes who have appeared on Upper Deck's¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦trading cards. This information is already ¦682,¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 3 ¦publicly available in the form of the trading ¦Ex. ¦ ¦ ¦Masherah ¦cards. Furthermore, the list itself is sorted ¦B; ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦alphabetically by first name and contains no other¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦data about the players. The list does not, ¦739 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦therefore, disclose Upper Deck's judgment or ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦valuation of players' worth. ¦ ¦ +---+-----------------+--------------------------------------------------+----¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. CLC and Upper ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Deck have established good cause to seal portions ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of Exhibits 4-5, which is a licensing agreement ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦between Upper Deck and named plaintiff Oscar ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Robertson. Terms such as Services, Consideration, ¦682,¦ ¦ ¦Exhibits 4-5 ¦and Term contain competitively sensitive ¦Ex. ¦ ¦ ¦Masherah ¦information that, if disclosed, would disadvantage¦B; ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦Robertson and Upper Deck in future negotiations. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The parties have not established, however, that ¦739 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the majority of the agreement is confidential ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦commercial information such that the entire ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦exhibit should be sealed. CLC may submit proposed ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦redactions by May 17, 2013 if it wishes to redact ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦portions of Exhibits 4-5. ¦ ¦ +---+-----------------+--------------------------------------------------+----¦ ¦ ¦ ¦GRANTED. CLC and Upper Deck have established good ¦682,¦ ¦ ¦Exhibit 6 ¦cause to seal the amount paid to plaintiff ¦Ex. ¦ ¦ ¦Masherah ¦Robertson in conjunction with a licensing ¦B; ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration ¦agreement under 26(c)(1)(G). ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦739 ¦ +---+-----------------+--------------------------------------------------+----¦ ¦ ¦¶¶ 13-17 of the ¦GRANTED. The NFL Players' Association has shown ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Declaration of ¦good cause to redact paragraphs 13-17 of the ¦ ¦ ¦692¦Keith Gordon in ¦Gordon Declaration, which contain nonpublic ¦711 ¦ ¦ ¦Support of EA's ¦methods of distributing revenue between players ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and CLC's ¦and identifies the largest licensing revenue ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Opposition ¦generators, under Rule 26(c)(1)(G). ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
III. CONCLUSION
In accordance with the above, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART CLC's and EA's motion to seal materials submitted in support of their opposition. If CLC seeks to redact parts of Exhibit 13 to the Drucker Declaration, or parts of Exhibits 1, 4, and 5 to the Masherah Declaration, it must submit its proposed redactions, filed provisionally under seal, to chambers by May 17, 2013 by 5:00 p.m. CLC should submit one copy, highlighting which parts of these exhibits it seeks to redact. If EA and CLC wish to submit the materials that this Court denied sealing in support of their opposition, they must file them in the public record within four days under Civil Local Rule 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