Jones v. PGA Tour, Inc.

Background

The New York Times Company (NYT), a nonparty, asked to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) so it could seek access to records filed under seal. The records concerned PGA Tour’s discovery efforts against the Public Investment Fund of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (PIF) and HE, PIF and HE’s motion to challenge those subpoenas, the court’s discovery order, PGA Tour’s proposed amended counterclaim adding PIF and HE as defendants, and PIF and HE’s motion to dismiss.

The parties later filed a stipulation to dismiss the action, which the court approved on June 20, 2023. That dismissal terminated PIF and HE’s motion to dismiss. NYT’s motion to intervene and unseal remained pending.

Intervention

The court held that a nonparty seeking only to unseal court records does not need to show an independent basis for federal jurisdiction or a common legal or factual question with the main case. The court instead considered whether NYT’s request was timely, including the stage of the litigation, possible prejudice, and the reason for and length of the delay.

The court found NYT’s request timely. NYT had narrowed its request to records covered by sealing orders issued 10 to 18 weeks before its motion, and the court found that delay neither unreasonable nor prejudicial. The court therefore GRANTED NYT’s motion to intervene.

Unsealing Standards

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. For records connected more than tangentially to the merits of a case, the party seeking continued secrecy must show compelling reasons supported by specific facts. For records connected only tangentially to the merits, including ordinary discovery-related materials, the less demanding good-cause standard applies.

The court also considered NYT’s argument that the First Amendment provides a right of access. Under the “experience and logic” test, a party must show both that the proceeding or record has historically been open to the public and that public access plays a significant positive role in the relevant governmental process.

Motion to Dismiss

The court DENIED NYT’s request to unseal PIF and HE’s motion to dismiss at ECF No. 436. Because the case was dismissed about a month after the motion was filed and before any opposition was filed, the court had not reviewed the motion or relied on it in deciding the parties’ substantive rights. The court therefore found no common-law right of access to that motion.

The court also found that NYT had not made the required “experience and logic” showing for a First Amendment right of access to a motion to dismiss rendered moot by dismissal of the entire action. The court ordered the related sealing requests at ECF Nos. 435 and 450 removed from the docket.

Counterclaim Records and Discovery Records

For records related to PGA Tour’s motion to amend its counterclaim, the court had previously applied the compelling-reasons standard because the motion could affect the foundation of the lawsuit. LIV Golf had not yet had an opportunity to present its arguments supporting continued sealing of the specific records NYT identified in its reply. The court therefore ordered LIV Golf to submit a supplemental statement addressing why identified portions of those materials should remain sealed.

For the discovery-related records, the court held that the good-cause standard continued to apply. The relevant question was whether the discovery motions themselves were more than tangentially related to the merits, not whether the underlying discovery might be important to the case. PIF and HE’s later status as defendants did not retroactively change the standard. The court also found that NYT had not made the required First Amendment showing concerning public access to discovery documents.

Order

The court’s order granted NYT’s motion to intervene and denied its motion to unseal as to ECF No. 436. It required LIV Golf, within 14 days, to file a statement supporting continued sealing for documents covered by sealing orders at ECF Nos. 266, 279, 373, and 405. The statement had to follow the court’s standing order, use narrowly tailored redactions, avoid incorporating earlier sealing statements by reference, and number each document sequentially. Any document LIV Golf did not include in the statement was to be unsealed and filed publicly.