Jones v. PGA Tour, Inc.

Background

The court considered three administrative motions about sealing documents submitted with briefing on motions to stay discovery. The PGA Tour filed one motion concerning material designated confidential by LIV Golf, Inc. Plaintiffs LIV, Matt Jones, and Bryson DeChambeau filed two motions: one concerning material designated confidential by the PGA Tour and another concerning material designated confidential by nonparty Clout Public Affairs LLC.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records are generally available to the public. Because the materials were submitted with motions to stay discovery and were only tangentially related to the case’s merits, the court applied the “good cause” standard rather than the more demanding “compelling reasons” standard. A party seeking to seal material must identify the private or public interests supporting sealing, the harm that would result from disclosure, and why a narrower alternative would not be sufficient. When one party seeks to seal material designated confidential by another party, the designating party bears the burden of showing that sealing is justified.

Rulings on LIV materials

The court found good cause to seal LIV’s material concerning confidential negotiations with broadcasters and sponsors and investor operations under the Shareholder Agreement. The court found that disclosure could harm LIV’s ability to obtain outside funding, pursue a franchise model, and negotiate with potential business partners. The PGA Tour’s motion, ECF No. 414, was granted.

Rulings on PGA Tour materials

The court found that the PGA Tour generally showed good cause to seal summaries and communications concerning sensitive internal operations, corporate decision-making, communications with employees and nonparties, and strategy communications involving the PGA Tour commissioner. The plaintiffs’ motion concerning PGA Tour materials, ECF No. 421, was granted in part and denied in part.

The court denied without prejudice the PGA Tour’s request to seal Exhibit F to the Surprenant Declaration in its entirety because the PGA Tour did not explain specifically how disclosure would harm it. If the PGA Tour did not file another sealing motion, it was required to redact the third party’s address before publicly filing the exhibit. The court also denied without prejudice the requests to seal Exhibits G and L in their entirety. For Exhibit G, the request was not narrowly tailored because much of the deposition excerpt did not appear likely to cause competitive harm. For Exhibit L, general claims of competitive harm and damage to business relationships did not establish the specific harm required for sealing.

The court granted requests to seal specified portions of the plaintiffs’ opposition and the Surprenant Declaration, as well as Exhibits B, I, J, M, O, P, Q, R, and U, because those materials contained sensitive internal communications, strategic discussions, or business information whose disclosure could cause competitive harm. The order required the PGA Tour, by June 5, 2023, either to publicly file Exhibits F, G, and L or to file another motion seeking to seal portions it wanted kept private.

Rulings on Clout materials

The court found good cause to seal information concerning Clout’s work for the PGA Tour, including communications about strategy, media messaging, confidential processes, and know-how. The plaintiffs’ motion concerning Clout materials, ECF No. 422, was granted in part and denied in part.

The court granted the request to seal a specified portion of the plaintiffs’ opposition and most highlighted portions of the Surprenant Declaration. It denied the request as to Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 5, lines 20–22, because Clout did not request sealing those portions. It also denied the request to seal Exhibit A because sealing was not requested for that exhibit. The court required LIV to publicly file Exhibit A and a public redacted version of the declaration by June 5, 2023, after conferring with Clout.

Disposition

Judge Freeman granted the PGA Tour’s administrative motion, granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ administrative motion concerning PGA Tour materials, and granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ administrative motion concerning Clout materials. The order addressed public access to documents and did not decide the underlying claims in the case.