Shannon Ray, Khala Taylor, Peter Robinson, Katherine Sebanne, and Rudy Barajas, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, an unincorporated association

Opinion

1 2

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 SHANNON RAY, KHALA TAYLOR, PETER No. 1:23-cv-00425 WBS CSK 13 ROBINSON, KATHERINE SEBANNE, and RUDY BARAJAS, Individually and 14 on Behalf of Hall Those Similarly Situated, ORDER RE: REQUEST TO SEAL 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC 18 ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association, 19 Defendant. 20

21 ----oo0oo---- 22 Plaintiffs have filed a request to seal in connection 23 with their preliminary approval of a class action settlement, 24 seeking to redact the settlement agreement’s threshold percentage 25 of opt-outs needed to trigger the agreement’s termination clause. 26 (Docket No. 158.) 27 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the 28 1 burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public 2 access. See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 3 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The party must “articulate 4 compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 5 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies 6 favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding 7 the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (citation omitted). In 8 ruling on a motion to seal, the court must balance the competing 9 interests of the public and the party seeking to keep records 10 secret. See id. at 1179. 11 As other courts have explained, a settlement 12 agreement’s opt-out threshold for termination is likely “not 13 important to any individual class members’ decision to either 14 remain in or opt out of the class,” while public revelation of 15 that number raises a “potential for abuse” by so-called 16 “professional objectors” (i.e., “attorneys for class members who 17 extort additional payments from the parties in exchange for not 18 delaying or tanking the whole settlement”). See Friedman v. 19 Guthy-Renker, LLC, No. 2:14-cv-06009 ODW AGR 2016 WL 5402170, at 20 *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2016); see also, e.g., In re Lyft Inc. 21 Sec. Litig., No. 19-CV-02690 HSG, 2023 WL 2960006, at *2 (N.D. 22 Cal. Mar. 16, 2023); In re Yahoo! Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 17-cv- 23 00373-LHK, 2018 WL 11349976, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2018); 24 Thomas v. Magnachip Semiconductor Corp., No. 14-cv-01160 JST, 25 2016 WL 3879193, at *7 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2016). There are 26 therefore compelling reasons to grant plaintiffs’ request. 27 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ request to 28 ee ene ene non OE I IE I OE EO seal (Docket No. 158) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. The redacted version of the document has already been filed on the publicly available docket. (See Docket No. 159-1 at 25.) Defendants shall file the unredacted version of the settlement ° agreement under seal within five days. ° Dated: February 5, 2026 he theo A ie | WILLIAM B. SHUBB 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28