Jones et al v. PGA Tour, Inc., No. 5:2022cv04486 - Document 501 (N.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART NON-PARTY INTERVENOR THE NEW YORK TIMES CO.'S 460 MOTION TO UNSEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/5/2023. (mdllc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2023)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jones et al v. PGA Tour, Inc. Doc. 501 Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 1 of 35 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MATT JONES, et al., 7 Plaintiffs, 8 v. 9 PGA TOUR, INC., 10 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE NEW YORK TIMES CO.’S MOTION TO UNSEAL Re: ECF No. 460 Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 22-cv-04486-BLF 12 Presently before the Court is non-party The New York Times Company’s (“NYT”) motion 13 14 to unseal certain judicial records in this action (the “Motion to Unseal”). See Mot., ECF No. 460. 15 The Motion to Unseal concerns records related to the Court’s jurisdiction over the Public 16 Investment Fund of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (“PIF”) and His Excellency Yasir Othman Al- 17 Rumayyan (“HE”), and its determinations that PIF and HE were not shielded by sovereign 18 immunity. See Reply 6, 10, ECF No. 473. For the reasons discussed below, NYT’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 19 20 PART. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 A. 23 In August 2022, several professional golfers filed suit against Defendant PGA Tour, Inc. Parties and Claims 24 (“PGA Tour”) asserting breach of contract and multiple violations of federal and California 25 antitrust laws based on PGA Tour’s alleged interference with their participation in the launch of a 26 competing professional golf tour by LIV Golf, Inc. (“LIV Golf”). See ECF No. 1. An amended 27 complaint followed in which LIV Golf appeared as a plaintiff alongside the professional golfers. 28 See ECF No. 83. In September 2022, PGA Tour brought a counterclaim against LIV Golf for Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 2 of 35 1 tortious interference with contract. See ECF No. 108. PGA Tour subsequently moved to compel 2 discovery from (then) non-parties PIF and HE. See ECF No. 148. Following motion practice and 3 oral argument, Magistrate Judge van Keulen issued an order (the “Discovery Order”) on February 4 9, 2023, granting PGA Tour’s motion to compel. See ECF Nos. 265, 380. PIF and HE became defendants in this action on February 23, 2023, after the Court granted 5 6 PGA Tour leave to amend its counterclaim. See ECF Nos. 238, 280, 289. Shortly thereafter, on 7 February 28, 2023, PIF and HE filed a motion for de novo review and relief from the Discovery 8 Order; the Court denied the motion. See ECF Nos. 306, 392. 9 B. On June 16, 2023, NYT filed the pending Motion to Unseal, which was filed as a Motion 10 United States District Court Northern District of California NYT’s Motion to Unseal 11 for an Order to Intervene and for an Order Unsealing Court Records. See ECF No. 460.1 NYT 12 initially requested that the Court review the entire docket and “appropriately unseal records,” Mot. 13 1, but subsequently narrowed the scope of its request to records regarding “PIF and [HE]’s claims 14 that they are not subject to the court’s jurisdiction and are shielded by sovereign immunity,” Reply 15 3. Specifically, NYT stated that it sought access to the following documents and their 16 attachments: ECF Nos. 148, 166, 169, 173, 209, 223-1, 225,2 230, 238, 265/380,3 322, and 436. 17 Reply 10. Further, NYT asserted in its Reply that although several of the records at issue had 18 initially been reviewed under the lower, “good cause” sealing standard, subsequent case 19 developments meant that the Court should apply the more stringent, “compelling reasons” sealing 20 standard. Reply 4–5. The Court heard oral argument on the Motion to Unseal on August 3, 2023. See Aug. 3, 21 22 2023 Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 482. Because NYT had raised new arguments in its Reply, the Court 23 permitted LIV to file a supplemental brief regarding whether the sealing standard had changed 24 25 26 27 28 1 Later that day, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal of this action. ECF No. 462. The Court approved the stipulation of dismissal on June 20, 2023. See ECF No. 463. 2 ECF No. 225 and its attachment at ECF No. 225-1 are identical to, respectively, ECF Nos. 209-3 and 209-2, which NYT separately requests. These documents are public versions of the sealed documents at, respectively, ECF Nos. 208-2 and 208-1. 3 ECF No. 265 is the fully sealed Discovery Order issued on February 9, 2023. The Court later entered the public version of the Discovery Order at ECF No. 380, which contains redactions. 2 United States District Court Northern District of California Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 3 of 35 1 based on the posture of the case. See id. at 35:5–6; see also Sur-Reply, ECF No. 485. The Court 2 then issued an order on August 24, 2023 (the “Prior Order”), granting NYT’s request to intervene, 3 denying NYT’s motion to unseal with respect to ECF No. 436, finding that the sealing standard 4 had not changed, and ordering LIV Golf to file a statement in support of maintaining under seal 5 any currently-sealed information in the remaining documents to which NYT seeks access. See 6 Prior Order, ECF No. 497. The Court emphasized that LIV Golf’s requests to seal were to be 7 appropriately tailored to redact only sealable information. Id. at 11. LIV Golf submitted its 8 statement in support of sealing on September 7, 2023. 9 II. LEGAL STANDARD 10 A. 11 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records Federal Common Law 12 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 13 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 14 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the 15 starting point,” id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 16 2003)), and a party opposing a motion to unseal judicial records bears the burden of overcoming 17 the presumption. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–98 (9th 18 Cir. 2016) (reviewing standards to file under seal borne by party seeking sealing in evaluating 19 nonparty intervenor’s motion to unseal document). 20 Parties seeking to maintain under seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more 21 than tangentially related to the merits of a case,” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101, must show 22 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of 23 access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal 24 quotation marks and citation omitted). However, the strong presumption of public access does not 25 apply to judicial records relating to motions that are not related, or are only tangentially related, to 26 the merits of a case. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 27 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive 28 motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the 3 United States District Court Northern District of California Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 4 of 35 1 underlying cause of action.”). Where such records are at issue, a party opposing unsealing “need 2 only satisfy the less exacting ‘good cause’ standard.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. 3 B. 4 The First Amendment provides a right of access to various types of judicial records. See First Amendment 5 Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, 947 F.3d 581, 590 (9th Cir. 2020). Courts apply an “experience 6 and logic” test to evaluate “the institutional value of public access to judicial proceedings and 7 records to determine whether the First Amendment provides a presumption of access.” Id. “To 8 determine whether a First Amendment right of access attaches to a type of judicial proceeding or 9 record, we consider (1) whether that proceeding or record ‘ha[s] historically been open to the press 10 and general public’ and (2) ‘whether public access plays a significant positive role in the 11 functioning of the particular [governmental] process in question.’” Id. (quoting Press-Enter. Co. 12 v. Super. Ct., 478 U.S. 1, 8 (1986)). 13 C. 14 The Local Rules of this Court additionally require that all requests to seal be “narrowly Civil Local Rules 15 tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). That is, the sealing motion 16 must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a 17 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 18 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 19 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Id. at 79-5(c)(1). 20 III. 21 DISCUSSION The documents to which NYT seeks access, as listed in Exhibit A to the Reply, see Reply 22 10, fall into three categories: (1) PIF and HE’s opposition to discovery sought by PGA Tour, 23 which includes filings related to PGA Tour’s motion to compel discovery and PIF and HE’s 24 motion to quash, the Discovery Order addressing both motions, and PGA Tour’s opposition to PIF 25 and HE’s motion for de novo review of the Discovery Order (NYT Reply Ex. A, Nos. 1–8, 10– 26 11); (2) PGA Tour’s motion for leave to amend its counterclaim to add PIF and HE as defendants 27 (NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 9); and (3) PIF and HE’s motion to dismiss (NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 12). 28 Id. at 3. As noted above, the Court previously denied NYT’s motion to unseal the sole document 4 Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 5 of 35 1 in the last category, i.e., PIF and HE’s motion to dismiss, located at ECF No. 436. See Prior Order 2 7–8, 11. The Court now turns to the other two categories of documents. 3 4 A. Category 1: Documents Related to Discovery Disputes (NYT Reply Ex. A, Nos. 1–8, 10–11) NYT requests that the Court unseal materials related to a dispute over whether PGA Tour 5 could compel discovery from PIF and HE prior to their appearance as parties in this action. See 6 Reply 4–7. These materials are located on the public docket under lead ECF Nos. 148, 166, 169, 7 173, 209, 223-1, 225, 230, 265/380, and 322; they were sealed pursuant to three sealing orders, 8 located at ECF Nos. 266, 373, at 405. See id. at 10. 9 As the Court determined in the Prior Order, the good cause standard applies to these 10 documents because they were sealed in relation to discovery disputes that were not more than United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 tangentially related to the merits of the action. See Prior Order 10. PIF and HE’s eventual status as defendants in this action did not “retroactively change the good cause sealing standard for the 13 discovery disputes.” Id. The Court additionally noted that NYT had not presented argument 14 under the test for disclosure under the First Amendment. Id. Accordingly, the Court now 15 evaluates NYT’s Motion to Unseal the discovery dispute-related documents, and LIV Golf’s 16 corresponding requests to maintain sealing, under the common law good cause standard. 17 LIV Golf argues that there is no reason to reconsider or deviate from the prior sealing 18 analyses because there has been no material change in circumstances that would affect the 19 justifications for sealing. LIV Golf’s Suppl. St. re Sealing (“LIV Suppl. St.”) 2, ECF No. 498. 20 LIV Golf further argues that the materials at issue contain information about business strategies, 21 financial information, internal corporate decision making, confidential negotiations, contracts and 22 agreements, corporate governance procedures, and email addresses, all of which courts in this 23 district have found to satisfy both the compelling reasons and good cause standards for sealing. 24 See id. 3–4 (citations omitted). 25 As noted above, a party opposing a motion to unseal judicial records bears the burden of 26 overcoming the presumption. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, LLC, 809 F.3d at 1096–98. Accordingly, 27 the Court does not rest on the prior sealing orders, but rather evaluates anew whether the materials 28 5 Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 6 of 35 1 LIV Golf seeks to maintain under seal meet the good cause standard for sealing and the narrow 2 tailoring required by this district’s local rules. 3 4 some or all of the currently sealed information should remain under seal. See App’x A to LIV 5 Suppl. St. (“App’x A”), ECF No. 498-1. LIV Golf has additionally resubmitted ten previously- 6 filed fact declarations from its Chief Legal Officer, John Loffhagen, in support of sealing. See 7 Exs. 1–10 to LIV Suppl. St., ECF Nos. 498-2–498-11. Nine of these declarations describe 8 different portions of the discovery dispute-related material LIV Golf seeks to maintain under seal 9 under the good cause standard, and the competitive harm that would result from the exposure of 10 11 United States District Court Northern District of California For each document NYT seeks to unseal, LIV Golf has provided its position on whether the material at issue. See Exs. 1, 3–10 to LIV Suppl. St. Courts in this circuit have held that confidential business information in the form of 12 “license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business 13 strategies” satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., 14 No. 17-cv-4810, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020); see also, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, 15 Inc., 298 F. App’x. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons for sealing “business 16 information that might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy,” including confidential contract 17 terms); In re Google Location Hist. Litig., No. 5:18-cv-05062-EJD, 514 F. Supp. 3d 1147, 1162 18 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021) (“Compelling reasons may exist to seal ‘trade secrets, marketing 19 strategies, product development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer 20 information, internal reports[.]’”) (citation omitted); Simpson Strong-Tie Co. Inc. v. MiTek Inc., 21 No. 20-cv-06957-VKD, 2023 WL 350401, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2023) (granting sealing 22 request under compelling reasons standard of “confidential business development and internal 23 business strategy documents and intellectual property of MiTek, including internal MiTek research 24 and development information”); Zogenix, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2022 WL 3908529, at *1 n.1 (N.D. 25 Cal. May 26, 2022) (granting request to seal “internal conversations” about corporate “decision- 26 making process” in connection with summary judgment motion); Pinnacle Ventures LLC v. 27 Bertelsmann Educ. Servs., 2018 WL 11392741, at 1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2018) (granting sealing of 28 “internal governance procedures and corporate details” under compelling reasons standard); 6 Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 7 of 35 1 Hernandez v. County of Monterey, No. 13-cv-02354, 2023 WL 4688522, at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. July 2 21, 2023) (finding compelling reasons to seal email addresses and other personal contact 3 information). Such information is therefore sealable under the “less exacting” good cause 4 standard. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. United States District Court Northern District of California 5 Having reviewed LIV Golf’s arguments, the relevant Loffhagen declarations, and the 6 documents at issue, the Court finds that LIV Golf has shown good cause for maintaining under 7 seal the information in the discovery-related documents, which disclose confidential information 8 regarding LIV Golf’s formation; strategic launch plans; financials; internal decision-making 9 processes; negotiations with players, agents, and sponsors; and a Shareholders’ Agreement that 10 remains under seal. See In re Elec. Arts, 298 F. App’x at 569; Exeltis USA Inc., 2020 WL 11 2838812, at *1. However, the Court finds that certain of the sealing requests are not narrowly 12 tailored, and grants in part and denies in part those requests. The Court's rulings on the discovery- 13 related documents sought by NYT in its Motion to Unseal are set forth in the three tables below, 14 which are organized by sealing order. The Court notes that although this order deals with NYT’s 15 Motion to Unseal, it has for clarity fashioned its rulings as responsive to LIV Golf’s requests to 16 maintain information under seal. Thus “GRANT” will maintain sealing as a rejection of NYT’s 17 Motion to Unseal. 18 1. Sealing Order: ECF No. 266 (NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 10) 19 20 21 22 Document Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 February 9, 2023 380 / (265, Order Granting 499-2) PGA Tour’s Motion to Compel and Denying PIF & HE’s Motions to Quash (App’x A Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 10 13:20–14:11 DENIED as *14:14–16* to the first 15:3–9 two words of 15:11–16:17 13:20; 23:11–18 otherwise 25:20–25 GRANTED. 26:1–7 7 Reasoning With the exception of the first two words of 13:20, which constitute a section header, contains confidential information regarding LIV Golf’s formation Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 8 of 35 1 Document Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 2 3 4 5 Doc. No. 1) Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing 26:9–11 26:17–21 *27:5* 36:21–24 36:28–37:2 37:28 38:1. 6 7 8 9 and strategic launch plans; financials; internal decisionmaking processes; negotiations with players, agents, and sponsors; and a Shareholders’ Agreement that remains under seal. LIV Golf no longer seeks sealing of the bolded ranges. 10 Reasoning 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 2. Sealing Order: ECF No. 373 (NYT Reply Ex. A, Nos. 1–8) 12 13 14 15 Document Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 1 2 PGA Tour’s 148 / (147-3, 3:6–9 GRANTED. Motion to Compel 499-8) *4:14* PIF & HE’s *6:19–20* Compliance with 6:26–28 Subpoena (App’x 6:28–7:2 A Doc. No. 6) 7:2–3 7:3–4 *7:5–8* 9:8–18 *9:23–24* 16:28–17:3 18:10–13 *18:13* (last sentence) 19:17–18 19:19–20 LIV Golf no longer 8 Reasoning Contains confidential information regarding identities of LIV Golf’s consultants; internal decision-making; and investor involvement in decision-making. Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 9 of 35 1 Document 2 3 Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing Reasoning 148-2 / (147- Entire document. 4, 499-9) DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Large portions of the document contain LIV Golf’s confidential financial information and projections. However, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields (by which the Court means to include, throughout this order, information such as dates, email sender, recipients, and subject line) and footers, introductory and other nonconfidential language in the body of emails, presentation section headings, and videoconference logistics. 148-3 / (147- Entire document. 5, 499-10) DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Large portions of the document contain LIV Golf’s confidential business strategies. However, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields and footers, introductory and other non-confidential language in the body of emails, and presentation section 4 seeks sealing of the bolded ranges. 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 Ex. 2 to Declaration of Brook Dooley in Support of PGA Tour’s Motion to Compel PIF & HE’s Compliance with Subpoena United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 (App’x A Doc. No. 7) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4 Ex. 14 to Declaration of Brook Dooley in Support of PGA Tour’s Motion to Compel PIF & HE’s Compliance with Subpoena (App’x A Doc. No. 8) 27 28 9 Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 10 of 35 1 Document 2 3 Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 4 Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing headings. 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 5 Ex. 15 to Declaration of Brook Dooley in Support of PGA Tour’s Motion to Compel PIF & HE’s Compliance with Subpoena 148-3 / (147- Entire document. 6, 499-11) DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Large portions of the document contain LIV Golf’s confidential financial information; internal decisionmaking processes; and consultants’ identities. However, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields and footers, introductory and other non-confidential language in the body of emails (e.g., slide numbers), and presentation section headings. 148-3 / (147- Entire document. 7, 499-12) DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Large portions of the document contain LIV Golf’s confidential financial information and projections. However, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as presentation titles, dates, and section headings. 148-3 / (147- Entire document. 8, 499-13) DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Large portions of the document contain LIV Golf’s confidential strategies. However, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such (App’x A Doc. No. 9) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Reasoning 6 Ex. 16 to Declaration of Brook Dooley in Support of PGA Tour’s Motion to Compel PIF & HE’s Compliance with Subpoena (App’x A Doc. No. 10) 7 Ex. 17 to Declaration of Brook Dooley in Support of PGA Tour’s Motion to Compel PIF & HE’s Compliance 10 Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 11 of 35 1 Document 2 3 Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 4 5 6 with Subpoena Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing Reasoning as such as presentation titles, dates, and section headings. (App’x A Doc. No. 11) 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 8 Ex. 18 to Declaration of Brook Dooley in Support of PGA Tour’s Motion to Compel PIF & HE’s Compliance with Subpoena 148-3 / (147- Entire document. GRANTED. Email addresses 9, 499-15) Although the relevant constitute confidential sealing order granted personal contact sealing only as to information for which “[p]age 2, email dated there is good cause to July 10, 2022,” see seal. ECF No. 373, at 3, the document was not refiled with (App’x A Doc. No. corresponding 12) redactions. 14 LIV Golf no longer seeks sealing of the document, except to redact email addresses for privacy. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 Ex. 19 to Declaration of Brook Dooley in Support of PGA Tour’s Motion to Compel PIF & HE’s Compliance with Subpoena 148-3 / (147- Entire document. 10, 499-16) LIV Golf no longer seeks sealing of the document. (App’x A Doc. No. 13) 10 Ex. 34 to 148-5 / (147Declaration of 11) Brook Dooley in Support of PGA Tour’s Motion to Compel PIF & HE’s Compliance Entire document. Although PGA Tour lodged this document under seal, LIV Golf did not seek sealing. See ECF No. 158, at 4. However, this 11 Exhibit 19 is LIV Golf no longer hereby seeks sealing. ORDERED to be unsealed. Exhibit 34 is LIV Golf does not seek hereby sealing. ORDERED to be unsealed. Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 12 of 35 1 Document 2 3 Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 4 5 6 with Subpoena (Not included in App’x A) Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing Reasoning DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. The relevant page, which consists of two emails dated February 10, 2022, contains confidential information about LIV Golf’s internal decision-making processes and investor involvement in those processes. However, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields and footers, introductory and other nonconfidential language in the body of emails. DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although much of the document contains confidential information regarding LIV Golf’s player recruitment strategy and plans, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields and footers, introductory and other non-confidential language in the body of emails, and section headings in document was not filed publicly following the relevant sealing order. 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 11 Ex. 40 to Declaration of Brook Dooley in Support of PGA Tour’s Motion to Compel PIF & HE’s Compliance with Subpoena 148-5 / (147- Entire document. 12, 499-17) Although the relevant sealing order granted sealing only as to “[p]age 2,” see ECF No. 373, pursuant to LIV Golf’s request, see ECF No. 158, at 4, the document was not (App’x A Doc. No. refiled with 14) corresponding redactions. 15 LIV Golf seeks continued sealing of page 2. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 Ex. 45 to Declaration of Brook Dooley in Support of PGA Tour’s Motion to Compel PIF & HE’s Compliance with Subpoena 148-6 / (147- Entire document. 13, 499-18) (App’x A Doc. No. 15) 26 27 28 12 Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 13 of 35 1 Document 2 3 Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 4 Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing presentation slides. 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Reasoning NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 2 13 PIF & HE’s Motion 166 / (165-3, *5:9–10* GRANTED. to Quash and 499-20) 5:11 Opposition to PGA 5:18 Tour’s Motion to *5:19–25* Compel 14:28–15:1 Compliance with Subpoena LIV Golf no longer seeks sealing of the (App’x A Doc. No. bolded ranges. 16) 14 Declaration of Tim 166-1 / (165Taylor in Support 2, 499-21) of PIF & HE’s Motion to Quash and Opposition to PGA Tour’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena Entire document. LIV Golf no longer seeks sealing of this document. Contains LIV Golf’s confidential information regarding investor involvement in internal decisionmaking processes. The Taylor LIV Golf no longer Declaration is seeks sealing. hereby ORDERED to be unsealed. (App’x A Doc. No. 17) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 3 15 PGA Tour’s Reply 169 / (168- *1:21* in Support of its 39, 499-23) *3:3–5* Motion to Compel 3:10–13 PIF & HE’s 3:14–17 Compliance with 3:18 Subpoena and 3:22–25 Opposition to PIF 4:2–6 & HE’s Motion to 4:6–8 Quash 4:8–9 4:11 (App’x A Doc. No. 4:14 18) 4:15 GRANTED. Contains LIV Golf’s confidential LIV Golf information regarding states that it negotiations, no longer financials, and investor seeks sealing involvement in its of 8:22–23, internal decisionsee App’x A, making processes. but the proposed redactions include 8:22– 13 Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 14 of 35 1 2 3 Document Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4:16 4:17 4:18–19 4:19–20 4:20–22 4:24–25 4:27–5:1 5:8–9 5:9–13 5:16 5:18–21 6:4–5 6:10–13 6:14–15 6:16–18 6:22–26 *8:22–23* 8:24–25 8:25–26 8:26–28 8:28–9:1 10:17–18 *10:21–23* 10:24–25 *10:25–27* 11:26 11:27–28 11:28–12:2 *12:3* 12:3–4 12:7–9 12:11 12:14–16 *12:21–23* 13:07 13:24–25 13:26–27 13:27–28 13:28 13:28–14:1 14:1–2 14 Result re: Reasoning LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing 23, see ECF No. 499-23, at 8. The Court’s order assumes the highlighting is erroneous, and that LIV Golf does not seek sealing of 8:22–23. If LIV Golf in fact seeks sealing of 8:22–23, LIV Golf may include this document in a further administrative motion to seal as provided for in the Court’s instructions at the end of this order. Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 15 of 35 1 Document 2 3 Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 4 6 7 8 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 Reasoning DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although large portions of the document contain confidential information regarding LIV Golf’s business strategies, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as presentation titles, dates, and section headers. DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although much of the document contains LIV Golf’s confidential financial information, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as section headings in presentation slides. DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although much of the document contains confidential information regarding LIV Golf’s media strategy and partners, LIV Golf has not provided support for 14:3–4 *16:8–9* *16:11* 16:11–16 *16:16–17* 18:22–24 5 9 Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing 16 Ex. 1 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 1, 499-24) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash (App’x A Doc. No. 19) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17 Ex. 2 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 2, 499-25) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash (App’x A Doc. No. 20) 18 Ex. 3 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 3, 499-26) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash 15 Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 16 of 35 1 Document 2 3 Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 4 5 6 Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing sealing material such as email fields, footers, and introductory and other non-confidential language in the body of emails. (App’x A Doc. No. 21) 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 19 Ex. 4 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 4, 499-27) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although much of the document contains confidential information regarding LIV Golf’s media strategy and internal decision-making, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields, footers, and introductory and other non-confidential language in the body of emails. GRANTED as to email addresses only. Email addresses constitute confidential personal contact information for which there is good cause to seal. DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although much of the document contains LIV Golf’s confidential information regarding investor involvement in its decision-making (App’x A Doc. No. 22) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 Ex. 5 to 169-2 / (168Declaration of 5, 499-29) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash Reasoning Entire document. LIV Golf no longer seeks sealing of the document, except to redact email addresses for privacy. (App’x A Doc. No. 23) 21 Ex. 6 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 6, 499-30) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel 16 Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 17 of 35 1 Document 2 3 Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 4 5 6 7 Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing and Opposition to Motion to Quash Reasoning processes, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields, footers, and introductory and other non-confidential language in the body of emails. (App’x A Doc. No. 24) 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 22 Ex. 7 to 169-2 / (168Declaration of 7, 499-31) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash Entire document. LIV Golf no longer seeks sealing of the document. Exhibit 7 is LIV Golf no longer hereby seeks sealing. ORDERED to be unsealed. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 (App’x A Doc. No. 25) 23 Ex. 8 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 8, 499-32) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although much of the document contains LIV Golf’s confidential information regarding investor involvement in its decision-making, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields, footers, and introductory and other non-confidential language. DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although the document contains LIV Golf’s confidential information regarding investor involvement in (App’x A Doc. No. 26) 24 25 26 27 28 24 Ex. 9 to Declaration of Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re 169-2 / (168- Entire document. 9, 499-33) 17 Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 18 of 35 1 Document 2 3 Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 4 5 6 7 8 Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash Reasoning its decision-making, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields, footers, and introductory and other non-confidential language in the body of emails. (App’x A Doc. No. 27) 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 25 Ex. 10 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 10, 499-34) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although much of the document contains LIV Golf’s confidential information regarding investor involvement in its decision-making, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields, footers, and introductory and other non-confidential language in the body of emails. DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although much of the document contains LIV Golf’s confidential information regarding investor involvement in its decision-making, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields, footers, and introductory and other non-confidential language in the body of emails. 15 16 (App’x A Doc. No. 28) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Ex. 11 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 11, 499-35) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash (App’x A Doc. No. 29) 26 27 28 18 Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 19 of 35 1 Document 2 3 Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 27 Ex. 12 to 169-2 / (168Declaration of 12, 499-37) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash Entire document. LIV Golf no longer seeks sealing of the document, except to redact email addresses for privacy. Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing GRANTED as to email addresses only. Reasoning DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although much of the document contains information regarding LIV Golf’s confidential negotiations, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields, footers, and introductory and other non-confidential language in the body of emails. GRANTED as to email addresses only. Email addresses constitute confidential personal contact information for which there is good cause to seal. Email addresses constitute confidential personal contact information for which there is good cause to seal. (App’x A Doc. No. 30) United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 28 Ex. 13 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 13, 500-1) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash (App’x A Doc. No. 31) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 Ex. 14 to 169-2 / (168Declaration of 14, 500-3) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash Entire document. LIV Golf no longer seeks sealing of the document, except to redact email addresses for privacy. (App’x A Doc. No. 32) 26 27 28 30 Ex. 15 to Declaration of Sophie Hood in 169-2 / (168- Entire document. 15, 500-4) 19 DENIED for Although this lack of document contains sufficient information regarding Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 20 of 35 1 Document 2 3 Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing tailoring. Reasoning DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although much of the document contains information regarding LIV Golf’s confidential negotiations, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields, footers, and introductory and other non-confidential language in the body of emails. DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although the vast majority of this document contains information regarding LIV Golf’s confidential negotiations, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as the last two words of the first line, first two words of the second line, and section headings. (App’x A Doc. No. 33) 31 Ex. 16 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 16, 500-15) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash (App’x A Doc. No. 34) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 32 Ex. 17 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 17, 500-6) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash (App’x A Doc. No. 35) 25 LIV Golf’s confidential negotiations, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields and nonconfidential introductory language. 26 27 28 33 Ex. 18 to Declaration of Sophie Hood in 169-2 / (168- Entire document. 18, 500-7) 20 DENIED for Although much of the lack of document contains sufficient confidential Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 21 of 35 1 Document 2 3 Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 4 5 6 7 8 9 Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing tailoring. Reasoning DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although the document contains confidential information regarding LIV Golf’s negotiations with specific players, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields, footers, and introductory and other non-confidential language (such as section headings) in the body of emails. (App’x A Doc. No. 36) 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 34 Ex. 19 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 19, 500-8) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash (App’x A Doc. No. 37) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 35 Ex. 20 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 20, 500-9) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash (App’x A Doc. No. 38) 28 21 information regarding LIV Golf’s negotiations with specific players, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields, footers, and introductory and other non-confidential language in the body of emails. GRANTED. Document wholly concerns confidential information regarding LIV Golf’s player recruitment. Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 22 of 35 1 Document 2 3 Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 36 Ex. 21 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 21, 500-10) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash Result re: Reasoning LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing GRANTED. Document wholly concerns confidential information regarding LIV Golf’s recruitment of a potential sponsor. (App’x A Doc. No. 39) United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 37 Ex. 22 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 22, 500-11) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash (App’x A Doc. No. 40) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 38 Ex. 23 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 23, 500-12) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although much of the document contains confidential information regarding LIV Golf’s recruitment of potential sponsors, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields, footers, and introductory and other non-confidential language in the body of emails. GRANTED. Document wholly concerns confidential information regarding LIV Golf’s recruitment of broadcasters. (App’x A Doc. No. 41) 39 Ex. 24 to Declaration of 169-2 / (168- Entire document. 24, 500-13) 22 Exhibit 24 is LIV Golf no longer hereby seeks sealing. Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 23 of 35 1 Document 2 3 Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash LIV Golf no longer seeks sealing of the document. Result re: Reasoning LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing ORDERED to be unsealed. (App’x A Doc. No. 42) 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 40 Ex. 25 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 25, 500-14) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although much of the document contains confidential information regarding LIV Golf’s detailed financial data, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields, footers, and introductory and other non-confidential language in the body of emails. DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although much of the document contains confidential information regarding LIV Golf’s business and marketing strategies, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as presentation titles, overviews, or section headings. GRANTED as to email Email addresses constitute confidential 15 16 (App’x A Doc. No. 43) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 Ex. 26 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 26, 500-15) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash (App’x A Doc. No. 44) 26 27 28 42 Ex. 27 to Declaration of 169-2 / (168- Entire document. 27, 500-17) 23 Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 24 of 35 1 Document 2 3 Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash LIV Golf no longer seeks sealing of the document, except to redact email addresses for privacy. Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing addresses only. Reasoning GRANTED as to email addresses only. Email addresses constitute confidential personal contact information for which there is good cause to seal. personal contact information for which there is good cause to seal. (App’x A Doc. No. 45) 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 43 Ex. 28 to 169-2 / (168Declaration of 28, 500-19) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash Entire document. LIV Golf no longer seeks sealing of the document, except to redact email addresses for privacy. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (App’x A Doc. No. 46) 44 Ex. 29 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 29, 500-20) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash GRANTED. This document, including headings, consists solely of confidential information regarding LIV Golf’s media strategies. (App’x A Doc. No. 47) 45 Ex. 30 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 30, 500-21) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to 24 DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although much of the document contains LIV Golf’s confidential information investor involvement in its internal decisionmaking processes, LIV Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 25 of 35 1 Document 2 3 Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 4 5 6 Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing Motion to Quash Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields, footers, and introductory and other non-confidential language in the body of emails. (App’x A Doc. No. 48) 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 46 Ex. 31 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 31, 500-22) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although the document contains confidential information LIV Golf’s work with specific consultants, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material not related to the consultants at issue, such as email fields, footers, and logistical information regarding LIV Golf participants. DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although the document contains confidential information regarding LIV Golf’s investors’ involvement in decision-making, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields, footers, and introductory and other non-confidential language in the body of emails. (App’x A Doc. No. 49) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Reasoning 47 Ex. 32 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 32, 500-23) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash (App’x A Doc. No. 50) 25 26 27 28 48 Ex. 33 to Declaration of Sophie Hood in 169-2 / (168- Entire document. 33, 500-24) 25 DENIED for Although the document lack of contains confidential sufficient information regarding Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 26 of 35 1 Document 2 3 Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 4 5 6 7 8 9 Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing tailoring. Reasoning DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although the document contains confidential information regarding LIV Golf’s recruitment of potential sponsors, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields, footers, and introductory and other non-confidential language in the body of emails. DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although the document contains confidential information regarding LIV Golf’s recruitment of sponsors, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields, footers, and introductory and other non-confidential language in the body of emails. (App’x A Doc. No. 51) 10 LIV Golf’s recruitment of potential sponsors, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields, footers, introductory and other non-confidential language (such as section headings) in the body of emails. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 49 Ex. 34 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 34, 500-25) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash (App’x A Doc. No. 52) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 Ex. 35 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 35, 500-26) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash (App’x A Doc. No. 53) 26 27 28 26 Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 27 of 35 1 Document 2 3 Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 51 Ex. 36 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 36, 500-27) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. (App’x A Doc. No. 54) United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 52 Ex. 37 to 169-2 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 37, 500-28) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash Reasoning Although much of the document contains confidential information regarding LIV Golf’s negotiations with specific players and its internal decisionmaking, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as email fields, footers, and introductory and other non-confidential language in the body of emails. GRANTED. This document consists solely of LIV Golf’s confidential information regarding its business structure and oversight. (App’x A Doc. No. 55) 53 Ex. 44 to 169-3 / (168- Entire document. Declaration of 38, 500-29) Sophie Hood in Support of PGA Tour’s Reply re Motion to Compel and Opposition to Motion to Quash (App’x A Doc. No. 56) 27 DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although the document contains confidential information regarding LIV Golf’s business plans, financials, and recruitment efforts, LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing material such as presentation titles and section headings. Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 28 of 35 1 2 3 Document Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 4 54 PIF & HE Reply in 173 / (172-2, 3:8–15 GRANTED. Support of Motion 500-31) *3:17* to Quash 3:18 If LIV Golf *4:16* intended to (App’x A Doc. No. 6:5–9 make a 57) 6:11–12 sealing 7:5–11 request other 7:27–28 than that stated in the LIV Golf no longer preceding seeks sealing of the column as the bolded ranges. LIV Court’s Golf also states it does assumption, not seek sealing of LIV Golf may 6:10, see App’x A, but include this that line is not document in a presently sealed, see further ECF No. 173, at 6. administrative Additionally, although motion to seal LIV Golf states it as provided wishes to maintain for in the under seal 3:8–15, its Court’s proposed redactions instructions at only highlight 3:9–14. the end of this See ECF No. 500-31, at order. 3. Multiple proposed redactions include citations that are currently public. See id.; see also id. at 6. The Court here assumes that LIV Golf requests to maintain the status quo as to all redactions except the bolded ranges. 27 28 28 Reasoning Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 29 of 35 Document 1 2 3 Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 4 55 Shareholders’ Agreement 7 (App’x A Doc. No. 58) 8 209-2, 225-1 Entire document. / (208-1, 500-32) 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 56 PGA Tour’s 209-3, 225 / 1:11–12 Supplemental (208-2, 500- 1:13–14 Memorandum in 33) 1:23–26 Support of Its 1:28–2:3 Motion to Compel 2:12–13 PIF & HE’s 2:14–16 Compliance with 2:18–22 Subpoena and 2:22–24 Opposition to 2:24 Motion to Quash 2:24–4:1 4:16–17 (App’x A Doc. No. 4:18–19 59) 4:25–26 5:7–11 20 21 22 23 24 25 57 PGA Tour’s Presentation made during January 13, 2023 hearing on PGA Tour’s Motion to Compel PIF & HE’s Compliance with Subpoena 26 (App’x A Doc. No. 27 28 Reasoning NYT Reply Ex. A, Nos. 5 & 74 5 6 Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing 4 GRANTED. Contains confidential information regarding LIV Golf’s corporate governance, investment structure, internal financial reporting, and internal decisionmaking and budgeting processes. GRANTED NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 6 224-1 / (223- Slides: DENIED for 1, 500-34) lack of 7 sufficient 8 tailoring. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Contains excerpts of sealed Shareholders’ Agreement. The sealing requests for several of the slides at issue concern information addressed elsewhere in this order for which either (1) LIV Golf no longer requests sealing, see, e.g., slide 12 (excerpting document at row 22 of this order), As noted above, see supra, at n.2, these two requests are identical and concern ECF No. 208. 29 Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 30 of 35 1 Document 2 3 Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 4 5 60) 6 7 8 9 10 Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 28 29 32 39 or (2) the Court has denied LIV Golf’s request for continued sealing for lack of sufficient tailoring, see, e.g., slide 14 (excerpting document addressed at row 53 of this order). LIV Golf has not provided support for sealing such materials. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 8 58 PIF & HE’s 230 / (229-3) Response to PGA Tour’s Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to Compel PIF & HE’s Compliance with Subpoena and Opposition to Motion to Quash 3:1–8 3:14–15 3:23–4:1 4:10–11 4:13–20 GRANTED. Contains excerpts of sealed Shareholders’ Agreement. 20 21 Reasoning (App’x A Doc. No. 61) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 31 of 35 3. 1 Sealing Order: ECF No. 405 (NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 11) 2 3 Document 4 5 Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 6 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Reasoning NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 11 7 8 Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing 59 PGA Tour’s 322 / (321-1, Opposition to PIF 500-36) & HE’s Motion for De Novo Review of February 9, 2023 Order (App’x A Doc. No. 62) 2:26–3:1 3:10–14 3:16–19 3:21–28 4:4–7 4:11–27 5:1–10 10:21–23 GRANTED as to portions listed in LIV Golf’s Appendix A. With respect to the portions to be maintained under seal: Contains confidential information regarding LIV Golf is LIV Golf’s ORDERED to Shareholders’ submit a Agreement, including Although not listed in statement investor relations; LIV Golf’s Appendix regarding its investor involvement in A or the Court’s prior position with decision-making; sealing order, the respect to investor rights; following portions are maintaining corporate governance also currently under under seal the documents; consulting seal and are other redacted work about and highlighted in LIV portions contracts with potential Golf’s current sealing identified sponsors and request: here within broadcasters; 3:2; 7:13–14; 10:17– ten days of negotiations with 18; 10:26–27; and the entry of players, agents, and 11:3–4. See ECF No. this order. sponsors, including 500-36. The statement financial offers; may be financial information submitted as about LIV’s formation. part of a further administrative motion to seal as provided for in the Court’s instructions at the end of this order. 28 31 Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 32 of 35 B. 1 The above tables concern NYT’s requests that the Court unseal materials related to a 2 3 dispute over whether PGA Tour could compel discovery from PIF and HE prior to their 4 appearance as parties in this action. See supra, at Parts III(A), III(A)(1)(a)–(c). The Court now 5 turns to the remaining category of documents requested by NYT, namely, documents related to 6 PGA Tour’s counterclaim. See id, at Part III(A). These materials are located on the public docket 7 under lead ECF No. 238; they were sealed pursuant to the sealing orders located at ECF No. 279. 8 See Reply 10. As determined in the Prior Order, both the common law and First Amendment analyses 9 United States District Court Northern District of California Category 2: Documents Related to PGA Tour’s Counterclaim (NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 9; Sealing Order: ECF No. 279) 10 apply to these documents, which are more than tangentially related to the merits of the action. See 11 Prior Order 8–9. “LIV Golf bears the burden of articulating compelling reasons for and a 12 substantial interest in maintaining under seal PGA Tour’s motion for leave to amend its 13 counterclaim and the related attachments.” Id. at 9 (citing Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096– 14 97). 15 LIV Golf argues that the materials at issue contain confidential information about its 16 Shareholders’ Agreement; an agreement setting out its relationship with its investors; its internal 17 decision-making processes; specific negotiations and offers to players, agents, sponsors, and 18 broadcasters; and the terms of certain indemnification agreements. See LIV Suppl. St. 3–4; App’x 19 A 4–15. LIV Golf additionally submits a previously-filed fact declaration from John Loffhagen in 20 support of sealing. See Ex. 2 to LIV Suppl. St., ECF No. 498-3. 21 As noted above, courts in this circuit have held that confidential business information, 22 including “license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and 23 business strategies,” satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. Exeltis USA Inc., 2020 WL 24 2838812, at *1; see generally supra, at Part III(A)(1) (citing cases). 25 Having reviewed LIV Golf’s arguments, the relevant Loffhagen declaration, and the 26 documents at issue, the Court finds that LIV Golf has generally shown compelling reasons (under 27 the common law) and a substantial interest in privacy (under the First Amendment) supporting the 28 maintenance under seal of the redacted and sealed information attached to PGA Tour’s motion for 32 Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 33 of 35 1 leave to amend its counterclaim to add PIF and HE as defendants. However, as with the 2 discovery-related documents, the Court finds that certain of the sealing requests are not narrowly 3 tailored; it grants in part and denies in part those requests. The Court's rulings on the 4 counterclaim-related documents sought by NYT in its Motion to Unseal are set forth in the table 5 below. 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 Document Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) Result re: LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing NYT Reply Ex. A, No. 9 60 PGA Tour’s 238 / (237-4, 3:26–27 GRANTED. Motion for Leave 499-6) 5:14–16 to Amend 5:18–20 Counterclaim to 5:23–24 Add Counter6:1 Defendants (App’x 6:3–12 A Doc. No. 5) 7:23–27 Reasoning 61 Ex. A to PGA Tour’s Motion for Leave to Amend Counterclaim (Proposed Counterclaim) (App’x A Doc. No. 2) Contains confidential information regarding sealed Shareholders’ Agreement; terms of indemnification agreements revealing contours of potential litigation; specific negotiations and offers to certain players, agents, sponsors, and broadcasters. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 238-2 / (237- ¶¶ 6, 25, 31–35, 44 1, 499-3) The final public version of the document is located at ECF No. 289. 26 27 28 33 GRANTED. Contains confidential information regarding sealed Shareholders’ Agreement; terms of indemnification agreements revealing contours of potential litigation; specific negotiations and offers to certain players, agents, sponsors, and broadcasters; recruitment of specific players. Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 34 of 35 1 Document 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Public ECF Portions Currently No. / (Sealed Under Seal and LIV ECF No.) Golf’s Proposed Modifications (If Any) 62 Ex. B to PGA 238-3 / (237- ¶¶ 6, 25, 31–35, 44 Tour’s Motion for 2, 499-4) Leave to Amend Counterclaim (Proposed Counterclaim – Redline) (App’x A Doc. No. 3) 9 10 Result re: Reasoning LIV Golf’s Requests to Maintain Under Seal or Undo Sealing GRANTED. Contains confidential information regarding sealed Shareholders’ Agreement; terms of indemnification agreements revealing contours of potential litigation; specific negotiations and offers to certain players, agents, sponsors, and broadcasters. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 63 Ex. C to PGA 238-4 / (237- Entire document. Tour’s Motion for 3, 499-5) Leave to Amend Counterclaim (App’x A Doc. No. 4) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 DENIED for lack of sufficient tailoring. Although much of the information contains confidential information regarding LIV Golf’s recruitment of players (including the identities of the players, the number of offers, the structure of the offers, and the terms of the offers, including specific amounts), LIV Golf has not provided compelling reasons to seal material such as email fields, footers, and introductory and other non-confidential language in the body of emails. 23 24 IV. 25 26 27 ORDER Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS that within ten days of the entry of this order: (1) LIV Golf shall submit to the Court a statement in accordance with the Court’s 28 34 Case 5:22-cv-04486-BLF Document 501 Filed 10/05/23 Page 35 of 35 1 instructions at row 59 of this order, regarding clarification of LIV Golf’s sealing 2 requests for Appendix A Document Number 62. 3 4 for which the Court denied LIV Golf’s sealing request due to insufficient tailoring, 5 or for the documents addressed at rows 15 and 54 of this order if any clarification is 6 required, with proposed redactions in accordance with the guidance provided by 7 this order. The motion, if filed, shall comply with Section V of the Court’s 8 Standing Order re Civil Cases. 9 United States District Court Northern District of California (2) LIV Golf may file an administrative motion to maintain under seal any document (3) LIV Golf shall file on the public docket, in accordance with the redactions—or lack 10 thereof—provided for by this order, all documents not included in an 11 administrative motion to maintain under seal. The documents shall be filed in a 12 manner conducive to a third-party’s understanding of the context for and contents 13 of the refiled documents, which may include, for example, filing an accompanying 14 chart or other form of reference. 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 5, 2023 18 19 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 35
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
