Colon v. NCAA

Opinion

----oo0oo---- SHANNON RAY, KHALA TAYLOR, PETER No. 1:23-cv-00425 WBS CSK ROBINSON, KATHERINE SEBBANE, and RUDY BARAJAS, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, ORDER Plaintiffs, v. ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association, Defendant. ----oo0oo---- Plaintiffs request to file under seal exhibits 32-48 to the Declaration of Michael Lieberman in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Fairmark Partners, LLP, as co-Lead Class Counsel (Docket No. 85-3), including an expert report by Professor Orley Ashenfelter as well as a notice of errata correcting one table and one paragraph in that report. (Docket Nos. 86, 89.) A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public access. See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (citation omitted). In ruling on a motion to seal, the court must balance the competing interests of the public and the party seeking to keep records secret. See id. at 1179. Plaintiffs’ requests fail to specify why the court should seal any documents outside of their mere designation as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” for purposes of discovery. Discovery labels alone do not outweigh the history of access and public policies favoring disclosure to the public. A party must still “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. “Simply mentioning a category of privilege [or two], without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does not satisfy the burden.” Id. at 1184. Plaintiffs provide no further guidance as to what sensitive information these documents contain that would merit an order sealing the documents from public view. As such, plaintiffs’ request amounts to no more than a waste of the court’s time. The court will consider a future request only if it amply explains why specific filings must be redacted or sealed. eee ee IE EI I EE IIE I IIE ES ESI EEE IO EO

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ request to seal (Docket Nos. 86, 89) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. dh ble (hi. Dated: November 14, 2024 Pi he Vi (eh UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE