Phillips v. The National Basketball Association

Nature of the Filing

The opinion text is a defendants’ letter-motion seeking permission to file certain materials under seal or with redactions. The defendants are the National Basketball Association and NBA Services Corp., which the letter collectively calls the “NBA” or “Defendants.” The request concerns materials submitted in opposition to plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs’ motions to exclude the testimony of Dr. Eili Klein and Evan Wasch, and plaintiffs’ motion to limit the testimony of Dr. Clare Rock.

The letter also states that the defendants had already sealed plaintiffs’ medical records and dates of birth under the court’s individual rules, without seeking court approval for those materials. The parties agreed that references to plaintiffs’ having taken certain medications did not need to be redacted.

Information the Defendants Sought to Protect

The defendants identified two categories of information. First, they sought protection for private information concerning nonparties, including other NBA referees and employees. The examples included nonparties’ COVID-19 vaccination status, medical and religious-exemption requests, and NBA employees’ email addresses. The defendants argued that nonparties’ privacy interests, particularly in sensitive health information, outweighed the presumption of public access.

Second, the defendants sought protection for confidential or proprietary NBA business information. The letter describes this information as including confidential financial information, the NBA’s processes for scheduling and rescheduling games, and NBA employees’ salaries. The defendants stated that the information was not widely disseminated and was disclosed only on a need-to-know basis.

The requested sealing or redaction covered specified exhibits to declarations submitted in support of the defendants’ opposition to the motions. The defendants also asked to redact related discussions in their memoranda of law, their response under Local Rule 56.1, and later briefing concerning the motions.

Legal Standard Described in the Filing

The letter describes the three-part framework associated with Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. First, the court determines whether the materials are “judicial documents,” meaning documents relevant to the exercise of judicial power and therefore subject to a presumptive public-access right. Second, the court determines the weight of that presumption by considering the materials’ role in the court’s exercise of its constitutional authority and their value to people monitoring the courts. Third, the court balances competing interests against the public-access presumption.

The defendants relied on decisions recognizing that the privacy interests of innocent third parties, sensitive medical information, and confidential business information may outweigh the public’s access interest when redactions are narrowly tailored.

Disposition

The visible opinion text does not clearly disclose the court’s disposition. At the top, the document states, “The sealing request is” followed by unreadable characters, and then “SO ORDERED.” Because the operative ruling is not legible in the supplied text, it cannot be accurately stated whether the request was granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part. The supplied case metadata identifies Vernon Broderick as the judge, while the document also contains a signature block identifying Robert W. Lehrburger as a United States magistrate judge; the text does not resolve that apparent discrepancy.