Colon v. NCAA ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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 ROBINSON, KATHERINE SEBBANE, and 13 RUDY BARAJAS, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly 14 Situated, ORDER 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated 18 association, 19 Defendant. 20 ----oo0oo---- 21 Plaintiffs request to file under seal exhibits 32-48 to 22 the Declaration of Michael Lieberman in Support of Plaintiffs’ 23 Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Fairmark 24 Partners, LLP, as co-Lead Class Counsel (Docket No. 85-3), 25 including an expert report by Professor Orley Ashenfelter as well 26 as a notice of errata correcting one table and one paragraph in 27 that report. (Docket Nos. 86, 89.) 28 1 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the 2 burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public 3 access. See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 4 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The party must “articulate 5 compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 6 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies 7 favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding 8 the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (citation omitted). In 9 ruling on a motion to seal, the court must balance the competing 10 interests of the public and the party seeking to keep records 11 secret. See id. at 1179. 12 Plaintiffs’ requests fail to specify why the court 13 should seal any documents outside of their mere designation as 14 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” for purposes of 15 discovery. Discovery labels alone do not outweigh the history of 16 access and public policies favoring disclosure to the public. A 17 party must still “articulate compelling reasons supported by 18 specific factual findings.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. “Simply 19 mentioning a category of privilege [or two], without any further 20 elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does not 21 satisfy the burden.” Id. at 1184. 22 Plaintiffs provide no further guidance as to what 23 sensitive information these documents contain that would merit an 24 order sealing the documents from public view. As such, 25 plaintiffs’ request amounts to no more than a waste of the 26 court’s time. The court will consider a future request only if 27 it amply explains why specific filings must be redacted or 28 sealed. eee ee IE EI I EE IIE I IIE ES ESI EEE IO EO 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ request to 2 seal (Docket Nos. 86, 89) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED 3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. dh ble (hi. 4 | Dated: November 14, 2024 Pi he Vi (eh 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28