Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03329/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03329-40/pdf.json

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

---

Case No.: 09-cv-03329 CW (NC) 

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD C. O’BANNON, JR., and 

others,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC 

ASSOCIATION, and others,

Defendants.

Case No. 09-cv-03329 CW (NC) 

ORDER TO PRODUCE 

DOCUMENTS FOR IN CAMERA 

REVIEW

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. Dkt. 

No. 341. In Exhibits 5 and 6 of NCAA’s opposition, NCAA identifies billing entries that 

involve redactions. Dkt. Nos. 354-5, 354-6. In their reply brief, plaintiffs state that they 

provided the unredacted entries to the Court for in camera review. Dkt. No. 361 at 17. It 

is unclear whether plaintiffs provided these unredacted entries to the District Court or to 

the undersigned. In any case, in order to fairly evaluate the entries, this Court orders 

plaintiffs to produce the entries identified by NCAA in Exhibits 5 and 6 to this Court for in 

camera review in their unredacted form. Plaintiffs must produce these entries in two 

different exhibits that correspond to the form and order of the entries in Exhibits 5 and 6. 

The Court notes that plaintiffs do accept some of NCAA’s proposed reductions as 

to certain time entries that may also appear in Exhibits 5 and 6. See Dkt. No. 360-4 at ¶ 8 

(“Acceptable proposed reductions as to time entries are compiled in Exhibit A, attached 

Case 4:09-cv-03329-CW Document 371 Filed 04/28/15 Page 1 of 2
Case No.: 09-cv-03329 CW (NC) 2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

hereto.”) Plaintiffs in their reply brief also point to entries that it states NCAA incorrectly 

characterized in a certain way. Some of these entries also appear in NCAA’s Exhibits 5 

and 6. See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 360-4 at ¶ 47 (entry from 3/4/2010 with the narrative

“[REDACTED]”), 354-6 at 3 (same). 

Thus, in the two exhibits plaintiffs must produce to the Court for in camera review, 

plaintiffs must indicate by asterisk or yellow highlighting the entries that appear in 

plaintiffs’ reply brief or its accompanying declarations, and where they appear (docket and 

page number). 

Plaintiffs must produce a hard copy of these documents to the Court at the April 29 

hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2015 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:09-cv-03329-CW Document 371 Filed 04/28/15 Page 2 of 2