Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00425/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00425-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

SHANNON RAY, KHALA TAYLOR, PETER 

ROBINSON, KATHERINE SEBBANE, and 

RUDY BARAJAS, Individually and

on Behalf of All Those Similarly 

Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC

ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated

association,

Defendant.

No. 1:23-cv-00425 WBS CSK

ORDER

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs request to file under seal exhibits 32-48 to 

the Declaration of Michael Lieberman in Support of Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Fairmark 

Partners, LLP, as co-Lead Class Counsel (Docket No. 85-3), 

including an expert report by Professor Orley Ashenfelter as well 

as a notice of errata correcting one table and one paragraph in 

that report. (Docket Nos. 86, 89.)

Case 1:23-cv-00425-WBS-CSK Document 90 Filed 11/14/24 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the 

burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public 

access. See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The party must “articulate 

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies 

favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding 

the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (citation omitted). In 

ruling on a motion to seal, the court must balance the competing 

interests of the public and the party seeking to keep records 

secret. See id. at 1179.

Plaintiffs’ requests fail to specify why the court 

should seal any documents outside of their mere designation as 

“CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” for purposes of 

discovery. Discovery labels alone do not outweigh the history of 

access and public policies favoring disclosure to the public. A 

party must still “articulate compelling reasons supported by 

specific factual findings.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. “Simply 

mentioning a category of privilege [or two], without any further 

elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does not 

satisfy the burden.” Id. at 1184. 

Plaintiffs provide no further guidance as to what 

sensitive information these documents contain that would merit an 

order sealing the documents from public view. As such, 

plaintiffs’ request amounts to no more than a waste of the 

court’s time. The court will consider a future request only if 

it amply explains why specific filings must be redacted or 

sealed.

Case 1:23-cv-00425-WBS-CSK Document 90 Filed 11/14/24 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ request to 

seal (Docket Nos. 86, 89) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Dated: November 14, 2024

Case 1:23-cv-00425-WBS-CSK Document 90 Filed 11/14/24 Page 3 of 3