Jones v. PGA Tour, Inc.

Background

Professional golfers sued PGA Tour, Inc., alleging breach of contract and violations of federal and California antitrust laws based on PGA Tour’s alleged interference with their participation in the launch of a competing tour by LIV Golf. LIV Golf later joined the case as a plaintiff, and PGA Tour asserted a counterclaim against LIV Golf for tortious interference with contract. PIF and HE later became defendants after PGA Tour amended its counterclaim.

The New York Times Company asked to intervene and obtain access to records concerning PIF and HE’s arguments that the court lacked jurisdiction over them and that sovereign immunity protected them. In an earlier order, the court ruled on which records should remain sealed and allowed LIV Golf to file a renewed motion addressing documents whose earlier redactions were not narrow enough, along with several documents requiring additional explanation.

Motion and legal standards

LIV Golf’s renewed motion asked to maintain redactions in 39 documents. No party or non-party filed a response.

For records related only tangentially to the merits of a case, the court applied the less demanding “good cause” standard. For records more closely related to the merits, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard, which requires specific reasons outweighing the public’s general right of access. The court also applied the First Amendment privacy standard to certain counterclaim-related records. In every instance, the Northern District of California’s local rules required the requested redactions to be narrowly tailored to seal only information that could properly remain confidential.

Court’s ruling

The court had already determined that each document addressed by the motion met the applicable standard for sealing. It therefore considered only whether LIV Golf’s proposed redactions were narrow enough. After reviewing all 39 documents, the court found that LIV Golf had revised and clarified its requests as directed in the earlier order and that the proposed redactions complied with the local rules.

The court granted LIV Golf’s renewed administrative motion to seal. Public versions of the 39 documents, containing the approved redactions, were available at ECF No. 505, and the court stated that LIV Golf needed to take no further action regarding those documents.

The court separately ordered LIV Golf, within one week after entry of the order, to file public versions of 10 documents for which it no longer sought sealing or sought sealing only for email addresses. The court stated that the order completed the resolution of The New York Times Company’s motion to intervene and unseal and LIV Golf’s related motions to maintain records under seal.