Jones v. PGA Tour, Inc.

Background

Several professional golfers sued PGA Tour, Inc. over alleged interference with their participation in the launch of a competing professional golf tour by LIV Golf, Inc. They asserted breach-of-contract and federal and California antitrust claims. LIV Golf later joined the golfers as a plaintiff. PIF and HE later became defendants after PGA Tour amended its counterclaim.

The New York Times Company, a non-party, sought to intervene and unseal records concerning PIF and HE’s challenges to discovery, the court’s jurisdiction, and sovereign immunity. The request ultimately covered records in three categories: discovery disputes involving PIF and HE; PGA Tour’s motion to amend its counterclaim to add PIF and HE as defendants; and PIF and HE’s motion to dismiss. In an earlier order, the court had denied unsealing as to the motion-to-dismiss materials and addressed the applicable sealing standards. This order considered the discovery-related and counterclaim-related materials.

Legal Standards

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. For records connected only tangentially to the merits, such as the discovery-dispute materials, the party opposing unsealing must generally show “good cause” to keep information sealed. For records more closely connected to the merits, such as the counterclaim materials, the party seeking continued sealing must show “compelling reasons” under federal common law and a substantial privacy interest under the First Amendment. The court also applied the local rule requiring sealing requests to be narrowly tailored to seal only material that qualifies for protection.

Rulings on Discovery-Related Records

The court found good cause to keep confidential information about LIV Golf’s formation, strategic launch plans, finances, internal decision-making, negotiations, and Shareholders’ Agreement under seal. It nevertheless found that several requests were too broad because LIV Golf had not supported sealing email fields, footers, headings, dates, logistical information, and other non-confidential material.

Accordingly, the court granted and denied in part LIV Golf’s requests to maintain sealing across the discovery-related records. Some entire documents or specific portions remained sealed, some documents were ordered unsealed, and some documents could remain sealed only as to email addresses or other specifically identified information. The court’s rulings on LIV Golf’s sealing requests operated as corresponding rejections or grants of The New York Times Company’s requests to unseal.

Rulings on Counterclaim-Related Records

For the records concerning PGA Tour’s proposed counterclaim, the court found that LIV Golf generally showed compelling reasons and a substantial privacy interest supporting continued sealing. The protected information included the Shareholders’ Agreement, indemnification agreements, negotiations and offers involving players, agents, sponsors, and broadcasters, and player recruitment.

The court granted the requests to maintain sealing for PGA Tour’s motion to amend the counterclaim and two proposed counterclaim versions. It denied for lack of sufficient tailoring the request concerning an exhibit containing confidential recruitment information because LIV Golf had not supported sealing email fields, footers, and introductory or other non-confidential language.

Order

The court granted in part and denied in part The New York Times Company’s motion to unseal. Within ten days, LIV Golf had to submit a statement clarifying one sealing request. LIV Golf could file an administrative motion seeking to maintain sealing for materials whose requests had been denied for insufficient tailoring, using proposed redactions consistent with the order. LIV Golf also had to file on the public docket the documents not included in such a motion, with redactions or no redactions as directed by the court. The opinion did not decide the underlying contract or antitrust claims.