DNA Sports Performance Lab, Inc. v. Major League Baseball

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 10 DNA SPORTS PERFORMANCE LAB, INC., et al., 11 No. C 20-00546 WHA Plaintiffs, 12 v. 13 ORDER DENYING MOTION RE 4 MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, et al., SEALING Defendants. 15 16

= 17 A prior order told the League and Union to lodge conditionally under seal plaintiff's Z 18 accounting of funds (Dkt. No. 144). The league duly filed a motion to consider whether 19 another party’s material should be sealed (Dkt. No. 146). Our Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) 20 gives the designating party seven days to file a declaration in support of sealing. Two weeks 21 have now passed, and plaintiff has still not filed a supporting declaration. Accordingly, with 22 no factual support justifying sealing of the material, see Kamakana v. City and Cty. of 23 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006), the motion is DENIED and the material will be 24 placed on the public docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: September 9, 2022. ee 27 Al _ LIAM ALSUP 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE