Jones v. PGA Tour, Inc.

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [6] 7 MATT JONES, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04486-BLF 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING LIV GOLF, INC.’S RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE 9 v. MOTION TO SEAL; REQUIRING FILING OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS 10 PGA TOUR, INC., ADDRESSED IN ECF NO. 501 Defendant. Re: ECF No. 505 [12] 13 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff LIV Golf, Inc.’s (“LIV Golf”) Renewed 14 Administrative Motion to Seal (the “Motion”). See Mot., ECF No. 505. LIV Golf filed the Motion 15 pursuant to the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part The New York Times Co.’s 16 Motion to Unseal (“Order Regarding Unsealing”). See Mot. 1; see also Order Re Unsealing, ECF 17 No. 501. The Order Regarding Unsealing concerned non-party The New York Times Company’s 18 (“NYT”) motion to unseal certain judicial records in this action related to the Court’s jurisdiction 19 over the Public Investment Fund of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (“PIF”) and His Excellency 20 Yasir Othman Al-Rumayyan (“HE”), and its determinations that PIF and HE were not shielded by 21 sovereign immunity. See Order Re Unsealing 1. 22 For the reasons discussed below, LIV Golf’s Motion is GRANTED. 23 I. BACKGROUND1 24 A. Parties and Claims 25 In August 2022, several professional golfers filed suit against Defendant PGA Tour, Inc. 26 (“PGA Tour”) asserting breach of contract and multiple violations of federal and California [27] 1 antitrust laws based on PGA Tour’s alleged interference with their participation in the launch of a 2 competing professional golf tour by LIV Golf. See ECF No. 1. An amended complaint followed 3 in which LIV Golf appeared as a plaintiff alongside the professional golfers. See ECF No. 83. In 4 September 2022, PGA Tour brought a counterclaim against LIV Golf for tortious interference 5 with contract. See ECF No. 108. PGA Tour subsequently moved to compel discovery from (then) 6 non-parties PIF and HE. See ECF No. 148. Following motion practice and oral argument, 7 Magistrate Judge van Keulen issued an order (the “Discovery Order”) on February 9, 2023, 8 granting PGA Tour’s motion to compel. See ECF Nos. 265, 380. 9 PIF and HE became defendants in this action on February 23, 2023, after the Court granted 10 PGA Tour leave to amend its counterclaim. See ECF Nos. 238, 280, 289. Shortly thereafter, on 11 February 28, 2023, PIF and HE filed a motion for de novo review and relief from the Discovery 12 Order; the Court denied the motion. See ECF Nos. 306, 392. 13 B. NYT’s Motion to Unseal 14 On June 16, 2023, NYT filed the pending Motion to Unseal, which was filed as a Motion 15 for an Order to Intervene and for an Order Unsealing Court Records. See ECF No. 460.2 NYT 16 initially requested that the Court review the entire docket and “appropriately unseal records,” id. at 17 1, but subsequently narrowed the scope of its request to records regarding “PIF and [HE]’s claims 18 that they are not subject to the court’s jurisdiction and are shielded by sovereign immunity,” Reply 19 3, ECF No. 473. Specifically, NYT stated that it sought access to the following documents and 20 their attachments: ECF Nos. 148, 166, 169, 173, 209, 223-1, 225,3 230, 238, 265/380,4 322, and 21 436. Reply 10. Further, NYT asserted in its Reply that although several of the records at issue 22 had initially been reviewed under the lower, “good cause” sealing standard, subsequent case 23 developments meant that the Court should apply the more stringent, “compelling reasons” sealing [24] 2 Later that day, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal of this action. ECF No. 462. [25] The Court approved the stipulation of dismissal on June 20, 2023. See ECF No. 463. 3 ECF No. 225 and its attachment at ECF No. 225-1 are identical to, respectively, ECF Nos. 209-3 [26] 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. [27] 1 standard. Reply 4–5. The Court heard oral argument on the Motion to Unseal on August 3, 2023. 2 See Aug. 3, 2023 Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 482. Because NYT had raised new arguments in its Reply, 3 the Court permitted LIV to file a supplemental brief regarding whether the sealing standard had 4 changed based on the posture of the case. See id. at 35:5–6; see also Sur-Reply, ECF No. 485. 5 C. Order Regarding Intervention 6 The Court issued an order on August 24, 2023 (the “Order Regarding Intervention”), 7 granting NYT’s request to intervene, denying NYT’s motion to unseal with respect to ECF No. 8 436, finding that the sealing standard had not changed, and ordering LIV Golf to file a statement 9 in support of maintaining under seal any currently-sealed information in the remaining documents 10 to which NYT seeks access. See Order Re Intervention, ECF No. 497. The Court emphasized that 11 LIV Golf’s requests to seal were to be appropriately tailored to redact only sealable information. 12 Id. at 11. LIV Golf submitted its statement in support of sealing on September 7, 2023. 13 D. Order Regarding Unsealing 14 On October 5, 2023, the Court issued the Order Regarding Unsealing. Although that order 15 concerned the remainder of NYT’s motion to unseal not addressed by the Order Regarding 16 Intervention, the Court, in the interest of clarity, fashioned its rulings as responsive to LIV Golf’s 17 requests to maintain information under seal, such that a ruling of “GRANT” maintained sealing as 18 a rejection of NYT’s motion to unseal. See Order Re Unsealing 7. Of the 63 documents 19 remaining at issue after the Order Regarding Intervention, 59 were related to discovery disputes 20 and 4 were related to PGA Tour’s motion for leave to amend its counterclaim to add PIF and HE 21 as defendants. See id. at 5–31 (discovery disputes), 32–34 (counterclaim). 22 1. Discovery-Related Documents 23 The Court found the 59 documents related to discovery disputes were subject to the good 24 cause standard for sealing, and that LIV Golf had shown the 59 documents—which disclosed 25 confidential information regarding LIV Golf’s formation; strategic launch plans; financials; 26 internal decision-making processes; negotiations with players, agents, and sponsors; and a 27 Shareholders’ Agreement that remains under seal—met this standard. See id. at 5, 7. However, 1 narrowly tailored, as required by the Northern District of California’s Civil Local Rules, and 2 accordingly denied LIV Golf’s requests to maintain those documents under seal. See id. at 7–31. 3 LIV Golf no longer sought sealing of 5 of the 59 discovery-related documents. See id. at 11, 13, 4 17, 22–23. With respect to another 5 of the 59 documents, LIV Golf no longer sought sealing 5 except to redact email addresses for privacy. See Order Re Unsealing 16, 19, 23–24. The Court 6 granted LIV Golf’s requests to maintain under seal the remaining 14 discovery-related documents, 7 although it requested additional statements with respect to 3 of those 14 documents. See id. at 13, 8 28, 31, 34–35. 9 2. Counterclaim Documents 10 The Court found the 4 documents related to PGA Tour’s counterclaim were subject to the 11 compelling reasons standard for sealing under the common law and the substantial interest in 12 privacy standard under the First Amendment, and that LIV Golf had shown the four documents 13 met both standards. See id. at 32–33. The Court denied LIV Golf’s sealing request for 1 14 document for lack of sufficient tailoring, and granted LIV Golf’s request to maintain under seal 15 the other 3 documents. See id. at 33–34. 16 3. Permission to File Renewed Administrative Motion 17 The Order Regarding Unsealing permitted LIV Golf to file an administrative motion to 18 maintain under seal any document for which the Court denied its sealing request due to 19 insufficient tailoring. See id. at 35. The order also permitted LIV Golf to include in such an 20 administrative motion its additional statements regarding the three discovery-related documents 21 for which the Court had requested or permitted clarification. See id. at 34–35. Lastly, the order 22 required LIV Golf to file on the public docket, with the appropriate redactions (if any), all 23 documents not included in an administrative motion to maintain under seal. See id. at 35. 24 E. LIV Golf’s Renewed Administrative Motion to Maintain Under Seal 25 On October 20, 2023, LIV Golf filed the instant Motion. See Mot. The Motion requests 26 maintenance under seal, with additional proposed tailoring, for the 35 discovery-related 27 documents and single counterclaim document that the Court found insufficiently tailored. See 1 clarifying statements regarding the 3 discovery-related documents identified by the Court in the 2 Order Regarding Unsealing for further response, so that a total of 39 documents are at issue in the 3 Motion. See id. at 23–26. No party or non-party filed a response to the Motion. 4 II. LEGAL STANDARD 5 A. Federal Common Law 6 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 7 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 8 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 , 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 9 U.S. 589 , 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the 10 starting point,” id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 11 2003)), and a party opposing a motion to unseal judicial records bears the burden of overcoming 12 the presumption. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 , 1096–98 (9th 13 Cir. 2016) (reviewing standards to file under seal borne by party seeking sealing in evaluating 14 nonparty intervenor’s motion to unseal document). 15 Parties seeking to maintain under seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more 16 than tangentially related to the merits of a case,” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101 , must show 17 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of 18 access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal 19 quotation marks and citation omitted). However, the strong presumption of public access does not 20 apply to judicial records relating to motions that are not related, or are only tangentially related, to 21 the merits of a case. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099 ; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 22 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive 23 motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the 24 underlying cause of action.”). Where such records are at issue, a party opposing unsealing “need 25 only satisfy the less exacting ‘good cause’ standard.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 . 26 B. First Amendment 27 The First Amendment provides a right of access to various types of judicial records. See 1 and logic” test to evaluate “the institutional value of public access to judicial proceedings and 2 records to determine whether the First Amendment provides a presumption of access.” Id. “To 3 determine whether a First Amendment right of access attaches to a type of judicial proceeding or 4 record, we consider (1) whether that proceeding or record ‘ha[s] historically been open to the press 5 and general public’ and (2) ‘whether public access plays a significant positive role in the 6 functioning of the particular [governmental] process in question.’” Id. (quoting Press-Enter. Co. 7 v. Super. Ct., 478 U.S. 1, 8 (1986)). 8 C. Civil Local Rules 9 The Local Rules of this Court additionally require that all requests to seal be “narrowly 10 tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). That is, the sealing motion 11 must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a 12 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 13 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 14 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Id. at 79-5 (c)(1). 15 III. DISCUSSION 16 The Court has previously determined that each document at issue in LIV Golf’s Motion 17 meets its respective standard for sealing, whether good cause, see Order Re Unsealing 5–7, or 18 compelling reasons and substantial interest in privacy, see id. at 32–33. Accordingly, the Court 19 need only determine whether LIV Golf’s proposed redactions are “narrowly tailored to seek 20 sealing only of sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). 21 The Court has reviewed the proposed redactions for each of the 39 documents at issue in 22 the Motion. LIV Golf has tailored and further clarified its redaction requests pursuant to the 23 Court’s statements in the Order Regarding Unsealing. The Court finds the proposed redactions to 24 be narrowly tailored in accordance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(a), and accordingly GRANTS the 25 Motion, as described in the chart below. [27] Document Public ECF No. / LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning [1] (Sealed ECF No.) Redaction 2 Requests 3 1 February 9, 2023 380 / 13:20–14:11 GRANTED. Contains confidential Order Granting (265, 499- 2) 15:3–9 information regarding 4 PGA Tour’s 15:11–16:17 LIV Golf’s formation Motion to 23:11–18 and strategic launch [5] Compel and 25:20–25 plans; financials; internal 6 Denying PIF & 26:1–7 decisionmaking HE’s Motions to 26:9–11 processes; negotiations 7 Quash 26:17–21 with players, agents, and 36:21–24 sponsors; and a [8] 36:28–37:2 Shareholders’ 37:28 38:1. Agreement that remains [9] under seal, as found by 10 the Court. The sealing is narrowly tailored to 11 confidential information. [12] 2 Ex. 2 to 148-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains LIV Golf’s 13 Declaration of (147-4, 499-9) portions. confidential financial Brook Dooley in information and 14 Support of PGA projections, which the Tour’s Motion to Court has found warrants 15 Compel PIF & sealing under the good HE’s Compliance cause standard. The [16] with Subpoena sealing is narrowly 17 tailored to confidential information. [18] 3 Ex. 14 to 148-3 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains LIV Golf’s 19 Declaration of (147-5, 499-10) portions. confidential business Brook Dooley in strategy information, [20] Support of PGA which the Court has 21 Tour’s Motion to found warrants sealing Compel PIF & under the good cause 22 HE’s Compliance standard. The sealing is with Subpoena narrowly tailored to 23 confidential information. [24] 4 Ex. 15 to 148-3 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains LIV Golf’s 25 Declaration of (147-6, 499-11) portions. confidential business Brook Dooley in information, including 26 Support of PGA investor involvement in Tour’s Motion to internal decision making, [27] Compel PIF & which the Court has Document Public ECF No. / LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning [1] (Sealed ECF No.) Redaction 2 Requests 3 with Subpoena under the good cause standard. The sealing is 4 narrowly tailored to confidential information. [5] 6 5 Ex. 16 to 148-3 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains LIV Golf’s Declaration of (147-7, 499-12) portions. confidential financial 7 Brook Dooley in information and Support of PGA projections, which the 8 Tour’s Motion to Court has found warrants Compel PIF & sealing under the good 9 HE’s Compliance cause standard. The 10 with Subpoena sealing is narrowly tailored to confidential 11 information. 12 6 Ex. 17 to 148-3 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains LIV Golf’s Declaration of (147-8, 499-13) portions on confidential business 13 Brook Dooley in page 2. strategies and internal Support of PGA decision making 14 Tour’s Motion to processes, which the 15 Compel PIF & Court has found warrants HE’s Compliance sealing under the good 16 with Subpoena cause standard. The sealing is narrowly 17 tailored to confidential information. [18] 7 Ex. 40 to 148-5 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains LIV Golf’s 19 Declaration of (147-12, 499-17) portions. confidential information 20 Brook Dooley in about internal decisionSupport of PGA making processes and 21 Tour’s Motion to investor involvement in Compel PIF & those processes, which the 22 HE’s Compliance Court found warrants with Subpoena sealing under the good 23 cause standard. The sealing is narrowly 24 tailored to confidential information. [25] 26 8 Ex. 45 to 148-6 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains LIV Golf’s Declaration of (147-13, 499-18) portions. confidential information 27 Brook Dooley in about player recruitment strategy and plans, which Document Public ECF No. / LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning [1] (Sealed ECF No.) Redaction 2 Requests 3 Compel PIF & sealing under the good HE’s Compliance cause standard. The 4 with Subpoena sealing is narrowly tailored to confidential 5 information. [6] 9 Ex. 1 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains LIV Golf’s 7 Declaration of (168-1, 499-24) portions. confidential information Sophie Hood in regarding LIV Golf’s 8 Support of PGA business strategies, which Tour’s Reply re the Court found warrants 9 Motion to sealing under the good 10 C Oo pm pop se itl ia on nd t o c sea au ls ie n gs t ia sn nd aa rr rd o. w T lyh e 11 Motion to Quash tailored to confidential information. [12] 10 Ex. 2 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains LIV Golf’s 13 Declaration of (168-2, 499-25) portions. confidential LIV financial Sophie Hood in information and internal 14 Support of PGA decision making Tour’s Reply re processes, which the 15 Motion to Court found warrants 16 Compel and sealing under the good Opposition to cause standard. The 17 Motion to Quash sealing is narrowly tailored to confidential 18 information. 19 11 Ex. 3 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential Declaration of (168-3, 499-26) portions. information regarding 20 Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s media strategy Support of PGA and partners, which the [21] Tour’s Reply re Court found warrants 22 Motion to Compel sealing under the good and Opposition to cause standard. The 23 Motion to Quash sealing is narrowly tailored to confidential 24 information. [25] 12 Ex. 4 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential Declaration of (168- 4, 499-27) portions. information regarding [26] Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s media strategy 27 Support of PGA and internal decisionTour’s Reply re making, which the Court Document Public ECF No. / LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning [1] (Sealed ECF No.) Redaction 2 Requests 3 and Opposition to under the good cause Motion to Quash standard. The sealing is 4 narrowly tailored to confidential information. [5] 6 13 Ex. 6 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential Declaration of (168-6, 499-30) portions. information regarding 7 Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s investor Support of PGA involvement in its 8 Tour’s Reply re decision-making Motion to Compel processes, which the 9 and Opposition to Court found warrants Motion to Quash sealing under the good 10 cause standard. The sealing is narrowly [11] tailored to confidential 12 information. 13 14 Ex. 8 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential Declaration of (168- 8, 499-32) portions. information regarding 14 Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s investor Support of PGA involvement in its 15 Tour’s Reply re decision-making Motion to Compel processes, which the [16] and Opposition to Court found warrants 17 Motion to Quash sealing under the good cause standard. The 18 sealing is narrowly tailored to confidential 19 information. 20 15 Ex. 9 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential Declaration of (168-9, 499-33) portions. information regarding [21] Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s investor 22 Support of PGA involvement in its Tour’s Reply re decision-making 23 Motion to Compel processes, which the and Opposition to Court found warrants 24 Motion to Quash sealing under the good cause standard. The 25 sealing is narrowly tailored to confidential [26] information. [27] 16 Ex. 10 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential Document Public ECF No. / LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning [1] (Sealed ECF No.) Redaction 2 Requests 3 Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s investor Support of PGA involvement in its 4 Tour’s Reply re decision-making Motion to Compel processes, which the 5 and Opposition to Court found warrants Motion to Quash sealing under the good [6] cause standard. The 7 sealing is narrowly tailored to confidential 8 information. 9 17 Ex. 11 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential Declaration of (168-11, 499-35) portions. information regarding 10 Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s investor Support of PGA involvement in its [11] Tour’s Reply re decision-making 12 Motion to Compel processes, which the and Opposition to Court found warrants 13 Motion to Quash sealing under the good cause standard. The 14 sealing is narrowly tailored to confidential 15 information. [16] 18 Ex. 13 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential 17 Declaration of (168-13, 500-1) portions. information regarding Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s confidential 18 Support of PGA negotiations, which the Tour’s Reply re Court found warrants 19 Motion to Compel sealing under the good and Opposition to cause standard. The 20 Motion to Quash sealing is narrowly tailored to confidential [21] information. [22] 19 Ex. 15 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential 23 Declaration of (168-15, 500-4) portions. information regarding Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s confidential 24 Support of PGA negotiations, which the Tour’s Reply re Court found warrants 25 Motion to Compel sealing under the good and Opposition to cause standard. The [26] Motion to Quash sealing is narrowly 27 tailored to confidential information. Document Public ECF No. / LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning [1] (Sealed ECF No.) Redaction 2 Requests 3 20 Ex. 16 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential Declaration of (168-16, 500-15) portions. information regarding 4 Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s confidential Support of PGA negotiations, which the 5 Tour’s Reply re Court found warrants Motion to Compel sealing under the good [6] and Opposition to cause standard. The 7 Motion to Quash sealing is narrowly tailored to confidential 8 information. 9 21 Ex. 17 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential Declaration of (168-17, 500-6) portions. information regarding 10 Sophie Hood in LIV’s confidential Support of PGA negotiations, which the [11] Tour’s Reply re Court found warrants 12 Motion to Compel sealing under the good and Opposition to cause standard. The 13 Motion to Quash sealing is narrowly tailored to confidential 14 information. 15 22 Ex. 18 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential Declaration of (168-18, 500-7) portions. information regarding [16] Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s player 17 Support of PGA negotiations and internal Tour’s Reply re decision making 18 Motion to Compel processes, which the and Opposition to Court found warrants 19 Motion to Quash sealing under the good cause standard. The 20 sealing is narrowly tailored to confidential [21] information. [22] 23 Ex. 19 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential 23 Declaration (168-19, 500-8) portions. information regarding of Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s player 24 Support of PGA negotiations and internal Tour’s Reply re decision making 25 Motion to Compel processes, which the and Opposition to Court found warrants [26] Motion to Quash sealing under the good 27 cause standard. The sealing is narrowly Document Public ECF No. / LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning [1] (Sealed ECF No.) Redaction 2 Requests 3 tailored to confidential information. [5] 24 Ex. 22 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential 6 Declaration of (168-22, 500-11) portions. information regarding Sophie Hood in LIV Golf’s LIV’s 7 Support of PGA negotiations with specific Tour’s Reply re sponsors, which the Court 8 Motion to Compel found warrants sealing and Opposition to under the good cause 9 Motion to Quash standard. The sealing is narrowly tailored to 10 confidential information. [11] 25 Ex. 25 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential 12 Declaration of (168-25, 500-14) portions. information regarding Sophie Hood in LIV’s detailed financial 13 Support of PGA data and internal decision Tour’s Reply re making, which the Court 14 Motion to Compel found warrants sealing and Opposition to under the good cause 15 Motion to Quash standard. The sealing is narrowly tailored to [16] confidential information. [17] 26 Ex. 26 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains LIV Golf’s 18 Declaration of (168-26, 500-15) portions. business and marketing Sophie Hood in strategies, which the 19 Support of PGA Court found warrants Tour’s Reply re sealing under the good 20 Motion to Compel cause standard. The and Opposition to sealing is narrowly [21] Motion to Quash tailored to confidential 22 information. 23 27 Ex. 30 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains LIV Golf’s Declaration of (168-30, 500-21) portions. confidential information 24 Sophie Hood in investor involvement in Support of PGA its internal decision25 Tour’s Reply re making processes, which Motion to Compel the Court found warrants [26] and Opposition to sealing under the good 27 Motion to Quash cause standard. The sealing is narrowly Document Public ECF No. / LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning [1] (Sealed ECF No.) Redaction 2 Requests 3 tailored to confidential information. [4] 28 Ex. 31 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential [5] Declaration of (168-31, 500-22) portions. information about LIV 6 Sophie Hood in Golf’s work with specific Support of PGA consultants, which the 7 Tour’s Reply re Court found warrants Motion to Compel sealing under the good 8 and Opposition to cause standard. The Motion to Quash sealing is narrowly 9 tailored to confidential information. [10] 11 29 Ex. 32 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential Declaration of (168-32, 500-23) portions. information about LIV 12 Sophie Hood in Golf’s work with specific Support of PGA consultants, which the 13 Tour’s Reply re Court found warrants Motion to Compel sealing under the good 14 and Opposition to cause standard. The Motion to Quash sealing is narrowly 15 tailored to confidential information. [16] 17 30 Ex. 33 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential Declaration of (168-33, 500-24) portions. information about LIV 18 Sophie Hood in Golf’s investors’ Support of PGA involvement in decision19 Tour’s Reply re making, which the Court Motion to Compel found warrants sealing 20 and Opposition to under the good cause Motion to Quash standard. The sealing is [21] narrowly tailored to 22 confidential information. 23 31 Ex. 34 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential Declaration of (168-34, 500-25) portions. information about LIV 24 Sophie Hood in Golf’s recruitment of Support of PGA sponsors and investor [25] Tour’s Reply re involvement in LIV Motion to Compel decision making, which [26] and Opposition to the Court found warrants 27 Motion to Quash sealing under the good cause standard. The Document Public ECF No. / LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning [1] (Sealed ECF No.) Redaction 2 Requests 3 tailored to confidential information. [4] 32 Ex. 35 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential [5] Declaration of (168-35, 500-26) portions. information about LIV 6 Sophie Hood in Golf’s recruitment of Support of PGA sponsors and investor 7 Tour’s Reply re involvement in LIV Motion to Compel decision making, which 8 and Opposition to the Court found warrants Motion to Quash sealing under the good 9 cause standard. The sealing is narrowly 10 tailored to confidential information. [11] 12 33 Ex. 36 to 169-2 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential Declaration of (168-36, 500-27) portions. information about LIV 13 Sophie Hood in Golf’s negotiations with Support of PGA specific players and its 14 Tour’s Reply re internal decision- making, Motion to Compel which the Court found 15 and Opposition to warrants sealing under the Motion to Quash good cause standard. The [16] sealing is narrowly 17 tailored to confidential information. [18] 34 Ex. 44 to 169-3 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential 19 Declaration (168- portions. information about LIV of Sophie Hood in 38, 500-29) Golf’s business 20 Support of PGA plans, financials, and Tour’s Reply re recruitment efforts, which [21] Motion to Compel the Court found warrants 22 and Opposition to sealing under the good Motion to Quash cause standard. The 23 sealing is narrowly tailored to confidential 24 information. [26] 35 PGA Tour’s 224-1 / Slides: GRANTED The slides at issue quote [27] Presentation made (223-1, 500-34) and excerpt documents Document Public ECF No. / LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning [1] (Sealed ECF No.) Redaction 2 Requests 3 2023 hearing on 8 determined warrants PGA Tour’s 9 sealing, as stated in this 4 Motion to Compel 10 Order. PIF & HE’s 11 5 Compliance with 12 Subpoena 13 [14] 7 15 [16] 8 17 [18] 9 19 [20] 10 21 [28] 12 29 [32] 13 39 36 Ex. C to PGA 238-4 / Highlighted GRANTED Contains confidential 14 Tour’s Motion for (237- 3, 499-5) portions. information about LIV Leave to Amend Golf’s recruitment of 15 Counterclaim players, which the Court found warrants sealing [16] under the good cause standard. The sealing is [17] narrowly tailored to 18 confidential information. 19 37 PGA Tour’s Reply 169 / 3:10–13 GRANTED The Court has previously in Support of its (168-39, 499-23) 3:14–17 granted the majority of 20 Motion to Compel 3:18 this sealing. See ECF No. PIF & HE’s 3:22–25 501 at 14-15. The Court [21] Compliance with 4:2–6 grants sealing for line Subpoena and 4:6–8 8:22-23, which implicates [22] Opposition to PIF 4:8–9 LIV’s confidential 23 & HE’s Motion to 4:11 business information and Quash 4:14 internal decision-making 24 4:15 processes. 4:16 25 4:17 4:18–19 26 4:19–20 4:20–22 [27] 4:24–25 Document Public ECF No. / LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning [1] (Sealed ECF No.) Redaction 2 Requests 3 5:8–9 5:9–13 4 5:16 5:18–21 5 6:4–5 6:10–13 [6] 6:14–15 7 6:16–18 6:22–26 8 8:22–23 8:24–25 9 8:25–26 8:26–28 10 8:28–9:1 10:17–18 [11] 10:24–25 12 11:26 11:27–28 13 11:28–12:2 12:3–4 14 12:7–9 12:11 15 12:14–16 13:07 [16] 13:24–25 13:26–27 [17] 13:27–28 18 13:28 13:28–14:1 19 14:1–2 14:3–4 20 16:14–16 18:22–24. [21] 38 PIF & HE Reply 173 / 3:8–15 GRANTED The Court has previously [22] in Support of (172-2, 500-31) 3:17-18 granted sealing. See ECF 23 Motion to Quash 6:5–9 No. 501 at 28. 6:11–12 24 7:5–11 7:27–28. [25] 39 PGA Tour’s 322 / 2:26–3:1 GRANTED The Court has previously [26] Opposition to PIF (321-1, 500-36) 3:2 granted most of this & HE’s Motion 3:10–14 sealing. See ECF No. 501 [27] for De Novo 3:16–19 at 31. The Court grants 1 Document Public ECF No./ LIV Golf’s Result Reasoning (Sealed ECF No.) Redaction 2 Requests 3 Review of 4:4-7 7:13-14; 10:17-18; February 9, 2023 4:11-27 10:26—27; and 11:3-4, 4 Order 5:1-10 which contain 7:13-14 confidential information 5 10:17-18 regarding LIV’s business 6 10:21—23 strategy and investor 10:26-27 involvement in decision 7 11:3-4. making, which the Court finds warrants 8 sealing under the good cause standard. [9] IV. ORDER [10] Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: [11] 1. LIV Golf’s Renewed Administrative Motion to Seal is GRANTED. Public [12] versions of the 39 documents addressed in this order, with the redactions proposed [13] = by LIV Golf and approved of by the Court, are available at ECF No. 505. No [14] further action is required of LIV Golf with respect to these documents. [15] 2. Within one week of the entry of this order, LIV Golf shall file on the public docket [16] the 10 documents addressed in the Order Regarding Unsealing for which LIV Golf [17] = no longer sought sealing, or sought sealing only for email addresses, in accordance Z 18 with the redactions (if any) approved by the Court. The 10 documents at issue are [19] addressed at rows 9, 10, 14, 20, 22, 27, 29, 39, 42, and 43 of the Order Regarding [20] Unsealing. 21 . . . . 3. This order completes the resolution of NYT’s motion to intervene and unseal and [22] LIV Golf’s corresponding motions to maintain under seal. [24] IT IS SO ORDERED. [25] Dated: November 8, 2023 27 eth Labson Freeman 38 United States District Judge