Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THE UPPER DECK COMPANY, Case No. 24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 v. DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL (ECF No. 114) 14 PIXELS.COM, LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Upper Deck Company’s (“Upper Deck”) 18 renewed motion to seal. (ECF No. 114.) For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS IN 19 PART and DENIES IN PART Upper Deck’s motion in accordance with Appendix A. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Defendant Pixels.com (“Pixels”) allegedly interfered with Upper Deck’s exclusive 22 rights to use intellectual property assets associated with the brand of world-famous 23 basketball player, Michael Jordan (“Jordan”), to develop sports memorabilia. More 24 specifically, Pixels allegedly advertised and sold products appropriating Jordan’s likeness 25 online without either Upper Deck’s or Jordan’s permission. (ECF No. 24 ¶¶ 25–35.) Upper 26 Deck obtained the rights to use Michael Jordan’s likeness through licensing agreements. 27 (Id. ¶¶19–24.) Furthermore, Pixels’ products also allegedly misappropriated Upper Deck’s 28 own trademarks—including Upper Deck’s logo. (Id. ¶ 11.) 1 On May 28, 2024, Upper Deck initiated this action against Defendant Pixels.com 2 (“Pixels”). (ECF No. 1.) On October 1, 2024, Upper Deck filed the operative complaint 3 in this action alleging causes of action, inter alia, for: (1) false advertising and unfair 4 competition claims under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a); (2) trademark dilution 5 under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(c); (3) trademark infringement under 15 6 U.S.C.A. § 1114; (4) deprivation of rights of publicity, Cal. Civ. Code § 3344; (5) 7 deprivation of rights of publicity under California common law; (6) unfair competition 8 under California statutory, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq, and common law. (ECF 9 No. 24.) 10 Throughout the course of this action, both parties filed motions to seal. (See ECF 11 Nos. 75, 78, 81, 88, 91, 95, 97, 102, 107.) The Court partially ruled on Parties’ proposed 12 redactions and ordered for Parties to file a consolidated motion to seal on July 28, 2025. 13 (ECF No. 110.) Upper Deck filed a motion to seal, consolidating prior motions, on August 14 8, 2025. (ECF No. 114.) Upper Deck moved to seal specific portions of certain documents, 15 including: 16 1. An executed licensing agreement between Upper Deck and Jump 23 regarding 17 Upper Deck’s rights to use Michael Jordan’s intellectual property in its products 18 (ECF Nos. 75 and 78, Ex. 7); 19 2. An executed agreement between Upper Deck and Brevettar, LLC for Brevettar, LLC 20 to sublicense Upper Deck’s rights to use Michael Jordan’s intellectual property (ECF 21 Nos. 75, 78, Ex. 10); 22 3. An executed agreement between Brevettar, LLC and Trends International, LLC for 23 Trends International, LLC to sublicense Brevettar, LLC’s rights to use Michael 24 Jordan’s intellectual property (ECF No. 78, Ex. 20); 25 4. An expert report by Upper Deck’s expert, Christian Tregillis (ECF No. 78, Ex. 94); 26 5. An expert rebuttal report by Christian Tregillis (ECF No. 78, Ex. 98); 27 6. An email between Jump 23 and Upper Deck management attached to Pixels’ motion 28 to seal (ECF No. 75, Ex. 105); and 1 7. An expert report by Pixels’ expert, Lindsey Fisher (ECF No. 102, Ex. M). 2 Upper Deck also moved to seal certain documents in their entirety—including a 3 report of Pixels’ sales data (ECF No. 102, Ex. F). Pixels filed a response on August 13, 4 2025. (ECF No. 123.) In this Order, the Court evaluates Upper Deck’s motion to seal. 5 (ECF No. 114.) 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 8 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 9 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 10 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 11 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz 12 v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 13 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 14 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 15 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 16 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 17 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 18 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 19 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden 20 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 21 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. When 22 the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 23 reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass 24 the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. 25 “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 26 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become 27 a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote 28 public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 1 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). As to this last category, courts have been 2 willing to seal court filings containing confidential business material, “such as marketing 3 strategies, product development plans, licensing agreements, and profit, cost, and margin 4 data,” where the parties have been able to point to concrete factual information to justify 5 sealing. See, e.g., Cohen v. Trump, No. 13-cv-2519-GPC-WVG, 2016 WL 3036302, at *5 6 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2016). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may 7 lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 8 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 9 Similarly, it is not enough to “mention[] a general category of privilege, without any further 10 elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents.” Id. at 1184. A blanket protective 11 order is not itself sufficient to show “good cause,” let alone compelling reasons, for sealing 12 particular documents. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133; San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. 13 Dist. Ct., N. Dist., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). The decision to seal documents is 14 “one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court” upon consideration of the “relevant 15 facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. 16 In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures set 17 forth in this Court’s Standing Order for filing documents under seal. See Standing Order 18 of the Hon. Cynthia Bashant for Civil Cases § 5. These procedures limit sealing to “only 19 those documents, or portions thereof, necessary to protect such sensitive information.” Id. 20 Thus, although sometimes it may be appropriate to seal a document in its entirety, 21 whenever possible, a party must redact. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183 (noting a 22 preference for redactions so long as they “have the virtue of being limited and clear”); 23 Murphy v. Kavo Am. Corp., No. 11-cv-00410-YGR, 2012 WL 1497489, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. 24 Apr. 27, 2012) (denying motion to seal exhibits but directing parties to redact confidential 25 information). 26 III. ANALYSIS 27 A. Whether Upper Deck Corrected Procedural Deficiencies Identified in 28 ECF No. 110 1 1. Requirement for Parties to Confer and Submit Responses to 2 Support Relevant Motions to Seal 3 The Court’s Standing Order notes, “[t]he fact that both sides agree to seal a document 4 or that a stipulated protective order was issued is insufficient cause for sealing.” Standing 5 Order § 5.A (“§ 5.A”). “Parties often seek to seal a document only because another party 6 designated the document as sensitive under a protective order . . . [i]n these circumstances, 7 the moving party must first meet and confer with the designating party to determine 8 whether the designating party maintains that any portion of the document must be filed 9 under seal.” Id. Then, “the designating party must file a response to the sealing motion 10 within seven days that satisfies the sealing standard . . . If no response is filed, the Court 11 may order that the document be filed in the public record.” Id. 12 Because Upper Deck is the moving party for the present motion to seal (ECF No. 13 114), the designating party’s burden to respond to a sealing motion in § 5.A only applies 14 to documents in which Pixels is the designating party. In Upper Deck’s renewed motion 15 to seal and accompanying papers, Upper Decks’ attorney has indicated that the above 16 documents were designated as “‘CONFIDENTIAL’ and/or ‘CONFIDENTIAL – FOR 17 COUNSEL ONLY’ materials under the Protective Order by Upper Deck and/or Pixels.” 18 (ECF No. 114-1 ¶ 2 (emphasis added).) From this, it is not clear which party had made the 19 confidentiality designations. Regardless, Pixels has filed an appropriate response (ECF 20 No. 123) to all of the documents that Upper Deck has moved to seal in its renewed motion 21 (ECF No. 114). Accordingly, the Court now finds that § 5.A of the Standing Order does 22 not necessitate the dismissal of any of Upper Deck’s motion to seal. 23 2. Requirement to Publicly File Copies of Documents with Proposed 24 Redactions 25 Since the Court’s last order on Parties’ motions to seal (ECF No. 110), the 26 documents Upper Deck seeks to redact are correctly lodged on the public docket. (See 27 ECF Nos. 110 at 4:26–5:7 (citing ECF Nos. 75, 78, 88, 97, and 107); 76 (lodged ECF No. 28 75), 82 (lodged ECF No. 78); 89 (lodged ECF No. 88); 98 (lodged ECF No. 97); 108 1 (lodged ECF No. 107); ECF Nos. 103-3 (lodged ECF No. 102, Ex. F); 103-5 (lodged ECF 2 No. 102, Ex. M).) Accordingly, since Upper Deck seeks to seal those same documents in 3 its renewed motion to seal (ECF No. 114), the Court now turns to evaluate whether Upper 4 Deck’s justifications for sealing or redacting those documents provide sufficiently 5 compelling reasons for sealing pursuant to caselaw. 6 B. Whether Upper Deck Presents Compelling Reasons for its Proposed 7 Redactions 8 1. Related Documents More Than Tangentially Related to Merits 9 As the Court previously found (ECF No. 110 at 4:6-16), Upper Deck’s proposed 10 documents to seal are filed in connection with Parties’ summary judgment motions (ECF 11 Nos. 74, 79). See Pac. Marine Propellers, Inc. v. Wartsila Def., Inc., No. 17-CV-555-L- 12 NLS, 2018 WL 11457880, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2018) (“The compelling reasons 13 standard applies to all motions except those that are only ‘tangentially related to the merits 14 of a case.’. . . Defendants’ summary judgment motion is more than tangentially related to 15 the merits”) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). As such, the Court finds Upper Deck’s 16 renewed motion to seal (ECF No. 114) is subject to the “compelling reasons” standard in 17 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 18 2. “Compelling Reasons” Legal Standard 19 Preventing the release of trade secrets generally constitutes a compelling reason to 20 seal such documents. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; see also Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 21 (observing that the “common-law right of inspection has bowed before the power of a court 22 to insure that its records” are not used as “sources of business information that might harm 23 a litigant's competitive standing”); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1226– 24 28 (Fed.Cir.2013) (holding that under Ninth Circuit law, detailed product-specific 25 information and internal reports are appropriate to seal under the “compelling reasons” 26 standard where that information could be used to the company's competitive disadvantage). 27 A “trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of 28 information which is used in [the party]'s business, and which gives [the party] an 1 opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.” In re 2 Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App'x 568, 569–70 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Restatement of Torts § 3 757, cmt. B); see also Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.1972) (adopting the 4 Restatement definition and finding that “a detailed plan for the creation, promotion, 5 financing, and sale of contracts” constitutes a trade secret); Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co., 101 6 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1455-56, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 277 (2002). 7 Even if proposed material for sealing does not constitute a trade secret, it may still 8 be sealable as confidential business information. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App'x at 9 569 (finding sealable “business information that might harm a litigant's competitive 10 standing”); see also Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598– 11 599) (“sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing” 12 are subject to sealing); see also In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017 13 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (sealing is warranted to prevent competitors 14 from “gaining insight into the parties' business model and strategy”); see also Garrity 15 Power Servs. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 21-MC-80159-JSC, 2021 WL 3473937, at 16 *1 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2021) (“confidential business information in the form of ‘license 17 agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business 18 strategies’ is sealable”). 19 However, not all business information is so confidential or sensitive that it must be 20 sealed. See, e.g., Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc., No. 13-04910, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21 177484, 2014 WL 7368594, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2014) (declining to seal, for example, 22 information about a litigant's "product design and source code and highly confidential and 23 competitively sensitive business information including usage data," in the absence of 24 demonstrating “specific compelling reasons”); GoDaddy.com LLC v. RPost Commc'ns 25 Ltd., No. 14-00126, 2014 WL 2117349, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 21, 2014) ("[A] party's 26 allegations that material is 'confidential' or 'business information' are insufficient to justify 27 sealing court records containing such material unless the party proves the existence of 28 1 compelling reasons such as those set forth in Kamakana.... "[O]nly in extremely limited 2 circumstances will confidential information actually merit the sealing of court records."). 3 In the Ninth Circuit, trade secrets, specific pricing terms, royalty rates, and similar 4 data are commonly sealed. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App'x 568, 569 (9th 5 Cir. 2008). For information that falls outside of those categories, movants must 6 particularly allege how their proposed redactions relate to confidential information that 7 should be sealed. See Perez v. Blue Mountain Farms, No. 2:13-CV-5081-RMP, 2015 8 WL 11112413, at *4 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 28, 2015) (“Defendants' redactions and any 9 claims of privilege or withholding of information must be explained with particularity as 10 to why that information should be protected pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A)”); see 11 also Ketayi v. Health Enrollment Grp., No. 3:20-CV-1198-RSH-KSC, 2023 WL 12 12007132, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 28, 2023) (“Compelling reasons may exist to seal some 13 of the redacted information in this record as confidential business information, but not for 14 the broad redactions HII proposes.”). 15 Importantly, “[t]he proponent of sealing bears the burden with respect to sealing. A 16 failure to meet that burden means that the default posture of public access prevails.” 17 Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006). 18 3. “Narrowly Tailored” Legal Standard 19 “Only those documents, or portions thereof, necessary to protect such sensitive 20 information” may be sealed. Standing Order § 5.A. As such, whenever possible, the 21 moving party must redact only what is necessary. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183; 22 Murphy, 2012 WL 1497489, at *2–3. Redactions must be narrowly tailored such that only 23 information that meets the compelling reasons standard is redacted. See Kamakana, 447 24 F.3d at 1183 (highlighting the “limited and clear” nature and specificity of the redactions); 25 ImprimisRx, LLC v. OSRX, Inc., No. 21-cv-01305-BAS-DL, 2023 WL 7029210, at *4 26 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2023) (rejecting redactions that were insufficiently tailored). The 27 moving party must provide the compelling reason justifying the proposed redactions. Foltz, 28 331 F.3d at 1135. 1 Litigation predicated upon contracts cannot be conducted in secret. JBS Packerland, 2 Inc. v. Phillips Cattle Co., Inc., No. 24-cv-01299-BAS-MSB, 2024 WL 4280960, at *2 3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2024). The public has the right to know the gist of the underlying 4 agreements in order to understand the court’s rulings. Id. Accordingly, mere vague or 5 ambiguous references to sealed documents, without any discussion of the substance of the 6 sealed documents, do not meet the compelling reasons standard. See Nia v. Bank of Am., 7 N.A., No. 21-cv-1799-BAS-BGS, 2024 WL 171659, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024); 8 ImprimisRx, LLC, 2023 WL 7029210, at *5. Information already available to the public 9 also cannot meet the compelling reasons standard. See id. at 1184. 10 4. Analysis of Compelling Reasons 11 i. Financial Data (e.g., Gross Revenue Amount, and Sales Data) 12 and Damages Calculation 13 “Sales data may constitute a trade secret if it is not readily ascertainable from a public 14 source but instead developed with a substantial amount of time, effort, and money.” Yeiser 15 Rsch. & Dev. LLC v. Teknor Apex Co., 281 F. Supp. 3d 1021, 1046 (S.D. Cal. 2017). Here, 16 it is apparent that Pixels has expended substantial effort to calculate its sales data and gross 17 revenue from the various spreadsheets, tables, and expert reports Upper Deck moves to 18 seal. The Court has also previously found that Pixels’ financial data is subject to sealing. 19 (ECF No. 110 at 10:21–11:20.) 20 Thus, the Court GRANTS Upper Deck’s request to seal Pixels’ financial data— 21 including in sealing Exhibit F to Upper Deck’s motion to seal (ECF No. 102), which the 22 Court has previously found to be sealable (ECF No. 110 at 11:4-6). Along the same vein, 23 the Court also GRANTS sealing experts’ damages calculations based upon Pixels’ 24 financial data. (Id. at 10:21–11:20.) 25 ii. Licensing Agreement Terms 26 The Ninth Circuit has held that licensing agreement terms are sealable trade secrets 27 when such terms provide a plan for the formation and sale of contracts. In re Elec. Arts, 28 Inc., 298 F. App'x at 569–70 (finding license agreement to be a trade secret); France 1 Telecom S.A. v. Marvell Semiconductor Inc., No. 12-CV-04967-WHO, 2014 WL 4965995, 2 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2014) (“the information at issue—terms of a license agreement— 3 constitutes trade secrets and is properly sealed”). Those terms may constitute trade secrets 4 because their public disclosure may hinder the trade secret holder’s market competitiveness 5 and participation. See e.g., In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig., 6 No. C 09-1967 CW, 2014 WL 662545, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2014) (“Because the public 7 disclosure of some of these terms may undermine NCAA's ability to negotiate future 8 licensing agreements with other broadcasters, these terms may be sealed.”). 9 However, there are limitations on the extent to which terms of a licensing agreement 10 can be sealed. For example, if certain terms are “otherwise publicly known,” they may not 11 be sealable. Huawei Techs., Co, Ltd v. Samsung Elecs. Co, Ltd., 340 F. Supp. 3d 934, 1004 12 (N.D. Cal. 2018). Additionally, if terms of licensing agreements that appear to be 13 boilerplate contractual terms, courts may require the moving party to “explain[] why 14 [those] provisions are so unique to that agreement that disclosure would cause significant 15 harm.” Id. Further, even when courts have found licensing terms to constitute trade 16 secrets, they have still limited permissible redactions to only specific portions of those 17 clauses. In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig., 2014 WL 662545, 18 at *1 (“only the specific dollar amounts. . . may be sealed”); O'Bannon v. Nat'l Collegiate 19 Athletic Ass'n, No. C 09-3329 CW, 2014 WL 12997312, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2014) 20 (same). 21 a. Royalty Rate, Minimum Guarantee, and 22 Compensation Clauses 23 It is well-established in the Ninth Circuit that “pricing terms, royalty rates, and 24 guaranteed minimum payment terms” are sealable trade secrets. In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 25 F. App'x at 569–70; see also Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.1972) (adopting 26 the Restatement definition and finding that “a detailed plan for the creation, promotion, 27 financing, and sale of contracts” constitutes a trade secret) (citing Whyte v. Schlage Lock 28 Co., 101 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1455-56, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 277 (2002)). 1 Thus, the Court GRANTS sealing the specific numerical values of royalty rate 2 minimum guarantee and compensation terms. See In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & 3 Likeness Licensing Litig., 2014 WL 662545, at *1 (“only the specific dollar amounts. . . 4 may be sealed”); O'Bannon, 2014 WL 12997312, at *1 (same). To clarify, the numerical 5 values of royalty rates, minimum guarantee, and compensation should also be sealed in 6 other documents (such as expert reports) discussing those values. 7 b. Sample Review and Approval 8 Upper Deck also moves to redact the number of sample products that it provides its 9 licensor for review and approval prior to sale distribution. The Court finds that like terms 10 of a licensing agreement providing royalty rates and minimum guarantees, terms detailing 11 the process through which Upper Deck—as licensee of certain intellectual property 12 assets—submits its products for review by its licensor can constitute a trade secret. Those 13 terms provide a blueprint for product development strategy, which if revealed, could 14 provide competitors an economic advantage. In re Hydroxycut Mktg. & Sales Practices 15 Litig., No. 09md2087 BTM (AJB), 2011 WL 864897, *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2011) (finding 16 compelling reasons to seal documents containing information revealing business and 17 marketing strategy and product development); see also In re ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 18 CV1105379MMMAGRX, 2014 WL 12577132, at *5 (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2014) (finding 19 compelling reasons to seal given “the inclusion of trade secrets such as a company's internal 20 strategies, marketing research, sales data, and product development plans”). Accordingly, 21 the Court GRANTS sealing the number of samples for review and approval. 22 c. Signature-Related Terms 23 Upper Deck further moves to redact the number of signatures and signature 24 alternatives that its licensor agreed for Michael Jordan to contribute for the development 25 of Upper Deck’s products and services. Here, the Court also finds that terms related to the 26 provision of signatures are part of the product development process. In re Hydroxycut 27 Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 2011 WL 864897, *2 (finding compelling reasons to seal 28 1 documents containing information revealing business and marketing strategy and product 2 development). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS sealing signature-related terms. 3 d. Personal Services Rendered by Michael Jordan 4 Upper Deck further moves to redact personal services (e.g., autograph sessions) that 5 its licensor agreed for Michael Jordan to contribute for the development of Upper Deck’s 6 products and services. Here, the Court also finds that terms related to the provision of 7 personal services are part of the business and product development processes. In re 8 Hydroxycut Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 2011 WL 864897, *2 (finding compelling 9 reasons to seal documents containing information revealing business and marketing 10 strategy and product development). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS sealing personal 11 service-related terms. 12 e. Third-Party Information (e.g., Names) 13 The identities of third parties are generally not sealable as trade secrets unless the 14 movant “provide[s] a particularized showing that specific harm will result if the [identities 15 are] made publicly available.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846 LHK 16 PSG, 2012 WL 4120541, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012); see also Fitzhenry-Russell v. 17 Dr. Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc., No. 17-CV-00564 NC, 2018 WL 10472795, at *2 (N.D. 18 Cal. Apr. 23, 2018) (“The identity of Dr. Pepper's third-party vender, Givaudan is not 19 sealable as a trade secret under the compelling reasons standard”). Here, Upper Deck has 20 not provided any justification for how revealing the identities of third parties in the 21 contracts would result in particularized harm to its market position. Further, Upper Deck 22 has failed to allege how third-party information involves any other privacy interests that 23 “outweigh the traditional right of public access” in Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. See also 24 Bunsow De Mory LLP v. N. Forty Consulting LLC, No. 20-CV-04997-JSC, 2021 WL 25 4521143, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2021) (rejecting motion to seal because “the names of 26 third-parties in this action constitute neither trade secrets nor confidential information”). 27 Though the identities of third parties in licensing agreements may be sealable in some 28 circumstance, such as when the “existence of the agreement[s]. . . [are] not otherwise 1 publicly known,” Upper Deck has failed to allege any such circumstances here. See 2 Huawei Techs., Co, Ltd v. Samsung Elecs. Co, Ltd., 340 F. Supp. 3d 934, 1004 (N.D. Cal. 3 2018). Thus, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Upper Deck’s requested 4 redactions of third-party information. 5 f. Sublicenses, Dates, Term Lengths of Agreements 6 Boilerplate contract terms are generally not sealable. Virun, Inc. v. Cymbiotika, 7 LLC, No. 822CV00325SSSDFMX, 2022 WL 17401698, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2022). 8 “Form contracts . . . that do not contain any confidential information may nevertheless be 9 sealed if” their dissemination would create a competitive disadvantage. Id. The excerpts 10 Upper Deck seeks to seal regarding sublicensing, agreement dates, and agreement term 11 lengths are common provisions in licensing agreements. Cf Novartis Vaccines & 12 Diagnostics, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., No. 5:21-CV-04874-EJD, 2022 WL 689005, at *2 13 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2022) (“parties provide no support for why a general description of the 14 nature of the Licensing Agreement—particularly a general description that reveals 15 provisions and terms common to virtually all patent licensing agreements—should be 16 sealed.”) While it may be true that competitors could gain a commercial advantage upon 17 discovering the term length of the agreements at issue in this litigation, Upper Deck has 18 not made a particularized showing of why that may be beyond merely noting that the 19 aforementioned terms constitute trade secrets. See In re Sotera Wireless, Inc., 591 B.R. 20 453, 462 (S.D. Cal. 2018), aff'd, 794 F. App'x 625 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]he mere statement 21 that something is a trade secret falls far short of what the Court needs to find that [movant] 22 has met its burden of proof. . .”). Additionally, Upper Deck does not provide additional 23 reasoning for why such terms should be sealed—meaning Upper Deck has failed to 24 overcome the presumption of public access. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. Thus, the Court 25 DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Upper Deck’s requests to redact provisions regarding 26 sublicensing, agreement dates, and agreement term lengths. 27 g. Damages-Related Licensing Terms (e.g., Related to 28 Violation) 1 Upper Deck has failed to provide particularized justification for why licensing 2 provisions relating to damages constitute either trade secrets or confidential information. 3 See In re Sotera Wireless, Inc., 591 B.R. at 462 (“[T]he mere statement that something is 4 a trade secret falls far short of what the Court needs to find that [movant] has met its burden 5 of proof. . .”); cf GoDaddy.com LLC v. RPost Commc'ns Ltd., No. CV-14-00126-PHX- 6 JAT, 2016 WL 1158851, at *5 (D. Ariz. Mar. 24, 2016) (“Whether Mr. Smith properly 7 apportioned damages is an issue that GoDaddy strongly disputes. . . and thus, the public 8 has a high interest in this information to understand the judicial process. In the absence of 9 compelling reasons as to why this information merits sealing, the Court will not authorize 10 Exhibit 4 to be sealed.”). 11 Thus, the Court finds Upper Deck has failed to meet its burden of proof to overcome 12 the “traditional right of public access,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178, and DENIES 13 WITHOUT PREJUDICE Upper Deck’s request to seal damages provisions of licensing 14 agreements. 15 iii. Lease Agreement Terms 16 Upper Deck moves to seal portions of ECF Nos. 75, 78, Ex. 10 regarding commercial 17 lease agreements, including the text detailing the amount of security deposit, length of term 18 of the agreement, and the amount of rent. Courts within the Ninth Circuit have held that, 19 without further explaining why terms of a lease should be subject to sealing, movants 20 cannot “outweigh the traditional right of public access” by merely stating that such terms 21 are confidential. MTO Summerlin LLC v. Shops at Summerlin N., LP, No. 22 218CV00737GMNPAL, 2019 WL 1261105, at *4 (D. Nev. Mar. 19, 2019) (applying 23 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). Similarly, here, Upper Deck does not explain how lease 24 terms in the record constitute either trade secrets or otherwise confidential information that 25 should be sealed beyond merely stating they should be sealed due to “privacy” concerns. 26 Thus, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Upper Deck’s proposed redactions 27 to seal lease terms. 28 iv. Jordan Signature 1 Upper Deck also moves to redact Jordan’s signature from ECF Nos. 75, 78, Ex. 7. 2 However, Upper Deck has failed to allege that Jordan’s signature is “not readily 3 ascertainable from a public source” such that it is a trade secret, or that such data should 4 be protected on any other ground of confidentiality. See Yeiser Rsch. & Dev. LLC , 281 F. 5 Supp. 3d at 1046. In absence of any particularized showing, the Court finds that Upper 6 Deck has not met its burden of proof to overcome the presumption of public access. 7 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 8 v. Exhibit 105 9 “An unsupported assertion of ‘unfair advantage’ to competitors without explaining 10 ‘how a competitor would use th[e] information to obtain an unfair advantage’ is 11 insufficient.” Hodges v. Apple, Inc., No. 13–cv–01128–WHO, 2013 WL 6070408, at *2 12 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013). Since Upper Deck has not provided reasoning for how the 13 email chain discussion would be “advantageous for competitors and unscrupulous actors 14 to know” beyond stating as such (ECF No. 114 at 9:3-7), the Court also DENIES 15 WITHOUT PREJUDICE sealing Exhibit 105 to Pixels’ motion to seal (ECF No. 78)— 16 which concerns how Upper Deck may use Jordan’s image to develop new products. 17 * * * 18 In sum, the Court broadly rules on Upper Deck’s motion to seal as follows: 19 Order Type of Information Court’s Ruling 20 Section 21 III.B.4.i Financial Data (e.g., Gross Revenue and GRANTED 22 Sales Data) and Damages Calculation 23 III.B.4.ii.a Royalty Rate, Minimum Guarantee, and GRANTED 24 Compensation Clauses in Licensing 25 Agreements 26 III.B.4.ii.b Sample Review & Approval Provisions in GRANTED 27 Licensing Agreements 28 1 Order Type of Information Court’s Ruling 2 Section 3 III.B.4.ii.c Signature-Related Terms in in Licensing GRANTED 4 Agreements 5 III.B.4.ii.d Terms Regarding Personal Services GRANTED 6 Rendered by Michael Jordan in Licensing 7 Agreements 8 III.B.4.ii.e Third-Party Information (e.g., Names) in DENIED WITHOUT 9 Licensing Agreements PREJUDICE 10 III.B.4.ii.f Sublicenses, Dates, Term Lengths of DENIED WITHOUT 11 Licensing Agreements PREJUDICE 12 III.B.4.ii.g Damages-Related Licensing Terms DENIED WITHOUT 13 PREJUDICE 14 III.B.4.iii. Lease Agreement Terms DENIED WITHOUT 15 PREJUDICE 16 III.B.4.iv. Jordan’s Signature DENIED WITHOUT 17 PREJUDICE 18 III.B.4.v. Exhibit 105 to Pixels’ Motion to Seal (ECF DENIED WITHOUT 19 No. 78) PREJUDICE 20 The Court includes Appendix A, providing an individual ruling on each of Upper 21 Deck’s proposed redactions. 22 IV. CONCLUSION 23 For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART 24 Upper Deck’s renewed motion to seal (ECF No. 114), in accordance with Appendix A. If 25 Upper Deck or Pixels wishes to file a renewed motion to seal for the denied requests, they 26 may do so no later than December 23, 2025, after the issuance of this order. To the extent 27 either Party wishes to renew its motion to seal for any document or portion thereof, that 28 1 Order listing: the title of the document, the ECF number of the public document, the 2 || ECF number of the lodgment, the page and line number(s) or the section or paragraph 3 ||numbers of the proposed redactions (or stating that the party wishes to seal the entirety of 4 ||the document), and the compelling reason for sealing each proposed redaction or 5 document. 6 Otherwise, Upper Deck and Pixels are instructed to file the unredacted versions of 7 aforementioned documents as directed by the Court in this Order on the public docket 8 later than December 30, 2025. Parties shall publicly file on CM/ECF as a “Notice 9 ||Regarding Exhibit Attachment” revised versions of these documents with only those 10 |/redactions that the Court has approved. When filing the documents on the public docket, 11 Parties must strictly adhere to the relevant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this district’s 12 || Civil Local Rules, this Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases, and this district’s Electronic 13 Filing Administrative Policies & Procedures Manual. Non-compliance with this 14 order or any relevant rules may result in sanctions pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.1. 15 ||Further, the Clerk of Court shall ACCEPT and FILE UNDER SEAL any documents 16 |}accompanying ECF No. 115. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ~ 19 || DATED: December 9, 2025 (yatta Bahar □□ 0 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 —417_ 1 APPENDIX A 2 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 3 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 4 Exhibit 7 to GRANTED IN PART. the Pixels' The Court has reasoned 5 Motions to that terms of licensing 6 Seal (ECF agreement related to the Nos. 75 and development of Upper 7 78) -- Upper Deck’s products can be 8 Deck and redacted, supra §§ Jump 23, III.B.4.ii.b-d. The Court, 9 Inc.’s thus, agrees to redact all 10 executed words in the proposed Endorsement provisions, except for first 11 Agreement two words of § 2(A)(i) and 12 first five words of § 2(A)(ii) of the licensing 13 agreement quoted here. It 14 is clear from the public record that Upper Deck has 15 This should remain licensed intellectual 16 confidential as it is property assets to create trade secret data trading cards and 17 related to the scope of memorabilia. (See e.g., 18 the license. Public ECF No. 24 ¶ 2.) As such, exposure could allow redacting the entirety of §§ 19 competitors and 2(A)(i)-(ii) would not be 20 unscrupulous actors narrowly tailored to to exploit new protect necessary 21 technologies and information. See 22 attempt to circumvent Kamakana, 447 F.3d at § 2 (A) the scope 1183 23 This should remain GRANTED, since this 24 confidential as it is provision entirely relates trade secret data to the product 25 related to the scope of development process 26 the license. Public through which Upper Deck exposure could allow collaborates with its 27 competitors and licensors. See In re 28 § 2(B) unscrupulous actors Hydroxycut Mktg. & Sales 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 to exploit new Practices Litig., 2011 WL technologies and 864897, *2. 4 attempt to circumvent 5 the scope. 6 7 This should remain GRANTED, since 8 confidential as it is proposed redaction trade secret data entirely relates to the 9 related to the scope of product development 10 the license. Public process through which exposure could allow Upper Deck collaborates 11 competitors and with its licensors. See In re 12 unscrupulous actors Hydroxycut Mktg. & Sales to exploit new Practices Litig., 2011 WL 13 technologies and 864897, *2. 14 attempt to circumvent Footnote 1 the scope. 15 DENIED WITHOUT 16 PREJUDICE, since it is clear on the public record 17 that Upper Deck has the 18 This should remain “exclusive right to use confidential as it is Jordan’s rights, including 19 trade secret data his marks described above, 20 related to the scope of on memorabilia, the license. Public photographs, collectibles, 21 exposure could allow and other products.” (ECF 22 competitors and No. 24 ¶ 48.) Information unscrupulous actors already available to the 23 to exploit new public cannot meet the 24 technologies and compelling reasons attempt to circumvent standard. Kamakana, 447 25 § 2(C) the scope. F.3d at 1184. 26 Trade secret – GRANTED, supra § number of samples III.B.4.ii.b. 27 for review and 28 § 4(B) approval 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 GRANTED, supra § Trade secret – III.B.4.ii.c. 4 § 5(a) number of signatures 5 Trade secret – types GRANTED, supra § of signature III.B.4.ii.c. 6 § 5(b) alternatives 7 Trade secret – GRANTED, supra § Minimum III.B.4.ii.a. 8 § 6 compensation 9 Trade Secret – GRANTED, supra § § 7(A) royalty rate III.B.4.ii.a. 10 GRANTED, since 11 proposed redaction entirely relates to the 12 product development 13 This should remain process through which confidential as it is Upper Deck collaborates 14 trade secret data with its licensors. See In re 15 related to the scope of Hydroxycut Mktg. & Sales the license. Public Practices Litig., 2011 WL 16 exposure could allow 864897, *2. Further, the 17 competitors and information in the unscrupulous actors proposed redaction is not 18 to exploit new otherwise publicly 19 technologies and available in this action’s attempt to circumvent record. Kamakana, 447 20 § 8(C) the scope. F.3d at 1184. 21 DENIED WITHOUT Trade secret – length PREJUDICE, supra § 22 § 13 of term for agreement III.B.4.ii.f. 23 Trade secret – interest GRANTED, supra §§ § 19 rate upon breach III.B.4.ii.a, III.B.4.ii.g. 24 DENIED WITHOUT 25 Trade secret – length PREJUDICE, supra § § 24(a) of term of agreement III.B.4.ii.f. 26 DENIED WITHOUT 27 UpperDeck PREJUDICE, supra § 270 Jordan signature III.B.4.iv. 28 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 DENIED WITHOUT UpperDeck PREJUDICE, supra § 4 271 Jordan signature III.B.4.iv. 5 Jordan signature and DENIED WITHOUT UpperDeck length of term for PREJUDICE, supra §§ 6 272 agreement III.B.4.ii.f, III.B.4.iv. 7 DENIED WITHOUT UpperDeck PREJUDICE, supra § 8 273 Jordan signature III.B.4.iv. 9 DENIED WITHOUT UpperDeck PREJUDICE, supra § 10 274 Jordan signature III.B.4.iv. 11 Exhibit 10 to GRANTED, supra § Pixels’ UpperDeck III.B.4.i. 12 Motions to 301, Trade secret – gross 13 Seal (ECF § 1.1 revenue amount Nos. 75 and Trade secret and GRANTED, supra § 14 78) -- UpperDeck privacy – names of III.B.4.ii.e. 15 Brevettar and 306, § 1 third parties Upper Deck Privacy - Lease terms DENIED WITHOUT 16 Business for rent, security PREJUDICE, supra § 17 Alliance UpperDeck deposit and length of III.B.4.iii. Agreement 314 term 18 DENIED WITHOUT 19 UpperDeck Privacy - Lease terms PREJUDICE, supra § 332 for rent III.B.4.iii. 20 Privacy – Tenant DENIED WITHOUT 21 UpperDeck improvement PREJUDICE, supra § 335 allowance III.B.4.iii. 22 Privacy - Lease terms DENIED WITHOUT 23 for rent, security PREJUDICE, supra §§ UpperDeck deposit and length of III.B.4.ii.f, III.B.4.iii. 24 340 term 25 Exhibit 20 to DENIED WITHOUT Pixels’ PREJUDICE, supra § 26 Motion to UpperDeck Trade Secret – date of III.B.4.ii.f. 27 66 agreement 28 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 Seal (ECF Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT No. 78) -- UpperDeck privacy – names of PREJUDICE, supra §§ 4 Licensing 66, § A.3 third parties III.B.4.ii.e, III.B.4.ii.f. 5 Agreement Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT between UpperDeck privacy – names of PREJUDICE, supra § 6 Brevettar and 67, § A.6 third parties III.B.4.ii.e. 7 Trends DENIED WITHOUT International, UpperDeck Trade secret – Length PREJUDICE, supra § 8 LLC 67, § D of contract term III.B.4.ii.f. 9 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT UpperDeck privacy – Royalty PREJUDICE, supra § 10 67, § E information III.B.4.ii.a. 11 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 12 UpperDeck privacy – Minimum PREJUDICE, supra § 68, § F Guarantee III.B.4.ii.a. 13 Trade secret – DENIED WITHOUT 14 UpperDeck number of samples to PREJUDICE, supra § 68, § G be approved III.B.4.ii.b. 15 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 16 privacy – Royalty PREJUDICE, supra § UpperDeck information and III.B.4.ii.a. 17 68, § H guarantee payment 18 DENIED WITHOUT UpperDeck Trade secret – PREJUDICE, supra § 19 69, § 1 damages for violation III.B.4.ii.g. 20 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT UpperDeck privacy – third party PREJUDICE, supra § 21 83, §§ 2, 3 information III.B.4.ii.e. 22 DENIED WITHOUT UpperDeck Trade secret – date of PREJUDICE, supra § 23 88 agreement III.B.4.ii.f. 24 Exhibit 98 to Trade secret and GRANTED, supra § Pixels' privacy – damage III.B.4.ii.a. 25 Motion to § 1.1, #3.3 calculations 26 Seal (ECF Pixels sales data and GRANTED IN PART, No. 78) ¶ 9 damage calculation supra § III.B.4.i. 27 Pixels sales data and GRANTED, supra § 28 ¶¶ 11–12 damage calculation III.B.4.i. 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 Pixels sales data and GRANTED, supra § damage calculation III.B.4.i. 4 ¶¶ 14–16 and royalty rates 5 Trade secret and GRANTED, supra §§ privacy – third party III.B.4.i, III.B.4.ii.e. 6 names, royalty rates 7 and minimum ¶ 16 guarantee 8 Trade secret and GRANTED, supra §§ 9 privacy – royalty III.B.4.i, III.B.4.ii.e. rates and damage 10 calculations and 11 ¶¶ 19-20 Pixels sales data GRANTED IN PART. 12 The Court has reasoned 13 that terms of licensing agreement related to the 14 development of Upper 15 Deck’s products can be redacted, supra §§ 16 III.B.4.ii.b-d. The Court, 17 thus, agrees to redact all words in the proposed 18 provisions, except for first 19 two words of § 2(A)(i) and first five words of § 20 2(A)(ii) of the licensing 21 agreement quoted here. It is clear from the public 22 record that Upper Deck has 23 licensed intellectual property assets to create 24 trading cards and 25 memorabilia. (See e.g., ECF No. 24 ¶ 2.) As such, 26 redacting the entirety of §§ 27 Trade secret – length 2(A)(i)-(ii) would not be ¶ 22 and scope of license narrowly tailored to 28 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 protect necessary information. See 4 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 5 1183. DENIED WITHOUT 6 PREJUDICE redaction of 7 date of licensing agreement, supra § 8 Trade secret – length III.B.4.ii.f; GRANTED 9 and scope of license redaction of damage and damage calculation, supra § 10 ¶ 24 calculation III.B.4.ii.g. 11 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE redaction of 12 Trade secret and third party names, supra § 13 privacy – third party III.B.4.ii.e; GRANTED names, royalty rates redaction of royalty rates 14 and minimum and minimum guarantee, 15 ¶ 25 guarantee supra § III.B.4.ii.a. DENIED WITHOUT 16 Trade secret and PREJUDICE redaction of 17 privacy – third party third party names, supra § names, royalty rates III.B.4.ii.e; GRANTED 18 and minimum redaction of royalty rates, 19 ¶ 27 guarantee supra § III.B.4.ii.a. DENIED WITHOUT 20 PREJUDICE redaction of 21 Trade secret and third party names, supra § privacy – third party III.B.4.ii.e; GRANTED 22 names, royalty rates redaction of royalty rates, 23 and minimum minimum guarantee, and guarantee and damage calculation, supra 24 ¶¶ 29, 31 damage calculation § III.B.4.ii.a. 25 Trade secret and GRANTED redaction of privacy – royalty royalty rates and damage 26 rates and damage calculation, supra § 27 ¶ 33 calculation III.B.4.ii.a. 28 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 GRANTED redaction of Trade secret and royalty rates and damage 4 privacy – damage calculation, supra § 5 p. 14 calculation III.B.4.ii.a. Trade secret and GRANTED redaction of 6 privacy – Pixels sales Pixels sales data and 7 data and damage damage calculation, supra p. 16 calculation § III.B.4.ii.a. 8 Trade secret and GRANTED redaction of 9 privacy – Pixels sales Pixels sales data and data and damage damage calculation, supra 10 Schedule R1 calculation § III.B.4.ii.a. 11 Exhibit 94 to GRANTED redaction of Pixels’ Trade secret – damage assessment, supra 12 Motion to § 1.1 damage assessment § III.B.4.ii.a. 13 Seal (ECF GRANTED redaction of No. 78) Trade secret – Pixels Pixels sales data, supra § 14 ¶ 26 sale data III.B.4.ii.a. 15 Trade secret – date DENIED WITHOUT 16 and length of PREJUDICE, supra § ¶ 36 agreement III.B.4.ii.f. 17 GRANTED IN PART. 18 The Court has reasoned that terms of licensing 19 agreement related to the 20 development of Upper This should remain Deck’s products can be 21 confidential as it is redacted, supra §§ 22 trade secret data III.B.4.ii.b-d. The Court, related to the scope of thus, agrees to redact all 23 the license. Public words in the proposed 24 exposure could allow provisions, except for first competitors and two words of § 2(A)(i) and 25 unscrupulous actors first five words of § 26 to exploit new 2(A)(ii) of the licensing technologies and agreement quoted here. It 27 attempt to circumvent is clear from the public 28 ¶ 37 the scope record that Upper Deck has 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 licensed intellectual property assets to create 4 trading cards and 5 memorabilia. (See e.g., ECF No. 24 ¶ 2.) As such, 6 redacting the entirety of §§ 7 2(A)(i)-(ii) would not be narrowly tailored to 8 protect necessary 9 information. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 10 1183. 11 GRANTED, since proposed redaction 12 entirely relates to the 13 product development This should remain process through which 14 confidential as it is Upper Deck collaborates 15 trade secret data with its licensors. See In re related to the scope of Hydroxycut Mktg. & Sales 16 the license. Public Practices Litig., 2011 WL 17 exposure could allow 864897, *2. Further, the competitors and information in the 18 unscrupulous actors proposed redaction is not 19 to exploit new otherwise publicly technologies and available in this action’s 20 attempt to circumvent record. Kamakana, 447 21 ¶ 38 the scope F.3d at 1184. Trade secret and GRANTED, supra § 22 privacy – personal III.B.4.ii.c-d. 23 requirements and alternatives to 24 ¶ 41 signatures 25 Trade secret and GRANTED for redaction privacy – of compensation and 26 compensation, royalty rate, supra § 27 royalty rate, and III.B.4.ii.a; DENIED for ¶¶ 42–44 length of agreement redaction of length of 28 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 agreement, supra § III.B.4.ii.f. 4 5 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, supra § 6 III.B.4.ii.f. Trade secret and 7 privacy –length of 8 ¶¶ 47-49 agreement Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 9 privacy –length of PREJUDICE, supra §§ 10 agreement, third III.B.4.ii.e, III.B.4.ii.f ¶ 50 party names 11 DENIED WITHOUT 12 Trade secret – PREJUDICE, supra § ¶ 51 number of samples III.B.4.ii.b 13 DENIED WITHOUT 14 PREJUDICE for length Trade secret and of agreement and third 15 privacy –length of party names, supra §§ 16 agreement, third III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED party names and for royalty rates, supra § 17 ¶ 53 royalty rates III.B.4.ii.a. 18 Trade secret and GRANTED, supra § privacy –minimum III.B.4.ii.a. 19 guarantee and 20 ¶ 54 payment schedule Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 21 privacy – third party PREJUDICE, supra § 22 ¶ 55 names III.B.4.ii.e. DENIED WITHOUT 23 PREJUDICE for length 24 Trade secret and of agreement and third privacy –length of party names, supra §§ 25 agreement, third III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED 26 party names and for minimum guarantee ¶¶ 56–59 minimum guarantee values, supra § III.B.4.ii.a. 27 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 28 ¶¶ 60–62 privacy –length of PREJUDICE for length 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 agreement, third of agreement and third party names party names, supra §§ 4 III.B.4.ii.e-f. 5 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for length 6 Trade secret and of agreement and third 7 privacy –length of party names, supra §§ agreement, third III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED 8 party names and for minimum guarantee 9 minimum guarantee values and royalty rates, ¶¶ 63–64 and royalty rates supra § III.B.4.ii.a. 10 DENIED for length of 11 Trade secret and agreement and third party privacy –length of names, supra §§ 12 agreement, third III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED 13 party names and for minimum guarantee minimum guarantee values and royalty rates, 14 ¶¶ 65–66 and royalty rates supra § III.B.4.ii.a. 15 DENIED WITHOUT Trade secret and PREJUDICE for third 16 privacy – third party party names, supra § 17 ¶¶ 67–68 names III.B.4.ii.e. DENIED WITHOUT 18 Trade secret and PREJUDICE for third 19 privacy – third party party names, supra § ¶¶ 69–70 names III.B.4.ii.e. 20 DENIED WITHOUT 21 PREJUDICE for length Trade secret and of agreement and third 22 privacy – third party party names, supra §§ 23 names, length of the III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED agreement, royalty for minimum guarantee 24 rates and minimum values and royalty rates, 25 ¶¶ 71–73 guarantee supra § III.B.4.ii.a. 26 DENIED WITHOUT Trade secret and PREJUDICE for third 27 privacy – third party party information, supra § 28 ¶¶ 74–75 names III.B.4.ii.e. 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for length 4 Trade secret and of agreement and third 5 privacy – third party party names, supra §§ names, length of the III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED 6 agreement, royalty for minimum guarantee 7 rates and minimum values and royalty rates, ¶¶ 76–77 guarantee supra § III.B.4.ii.a. 8 DENIED WITHOUT 9 PREJUDICE for length Trade secret and of agreement and third 10 privacy – third party party names, supra §§ 11 names, length of the III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED agreement, royalty for minimum guarantee 12 rates and minimum values and royalty rates, 13 ¶¶ 78–79 guarantee supra § III.B.4.ii.a. DENIED WITHOUT 14 Trade secret and PREJUDICE for third 15 privacy – third party party names, supra § ¶¶ 79–80 names III.B.4.ii.e 16 DENIED WITHOUT 17 PREJUDICE for length Trade secret and of agreement and third 18 privacy – third party party names, supra §§ 19 names, length of the III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED agreement, royalty for minimum guarantee 20 rates and minimum values and royalty rates, 21 ¶¶ 81–82 guarantee supra § III.B.4.ii.a. 22 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for length 23 Trade secret and of agreement and third 24 privacy – third party party names, supra §§ names, length of the III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED 25 agreement, royalty for minimum guarantee rates and minimum values and royalty rates, 26 ¶¶ 82–83 guarantee supra § III.B.4.ii.a. 27 28 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for length 4 Trade secret and of agreement and third 5 privacy – third party party names, supra §§ names, length of the III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED 6 agreement, royalty for minimum guarantee 7 rates and minimum values and royalty rates, ¶ 84 guarantee supra § III.B.4.ii.a. 8 GRANTED, the Court 9 finds that confidential settlement information is 10 “traditionally kept secret” 11 for which there are “compelling reasons” to 12 keep such information 13 under seal. See e.g., Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. 14 Mayorkas, No. 15 Trade secret and 317CV02366BASKSC, privacy – 2021 WL 666861, at *2 16 Confidential (S.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2021) 17 settlement of (citing Kamakana, 447 ¶ 86 litigation F.3d at 1178). 18 DENIED WITHOUT 19 PREJUDICE for length Trade secret and of agreement and third 20 privacy – third party party names, supra §§ 21 names, length of the III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED agreement, royalty for minimum guarantee 22 rates and minimum values and royalty rates, 23 ¶¶ 93–95 guarantee supra § III.B.4.ii.a. Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 24 privacy – third party PREJUDICE, supra §§ 25 names, length of the III.B.4.ii.e-f agreement, scope of 26 ¶¶ 97–99 license 27 28 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for third 4 party names and length of 5 agreement supra §§ III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED 6 Trade secret and for partner attributes, since 7 privacy – third party redacted portions relate to names, length of the Upper Deck and its 8 agreement, scope of licensors’ proprietary 9 license and partner business strategies, supra ¶¶ 99–102 attributes §§ III.B.4.ii.b-d. 10 GRANTED, since 11 redacted portions relate to Trade secret and Upper Deck and its 12 privacy – scope of licensors’ proprietary 13 license and partner business strategies, supra ¶ 103 attributes §§ III.B.4.ii.b-d. 14 Trade secret – Pixels GRANTED, supra § 15 ¶ 107 sales data spreadsheet III.B.4.i. Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 16 privacy – scope of PREJUDICE, supra § 17 license and third III.B.4.ii.e. ¶ 110 party names 18 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 19 privacy – scope of PREJUDICE, supra § license and third III.B.4.ii.e. 20 party names and 21 ¶ 112 business trade secrets 22 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT privacy – scope of PREJUDICE, supra § 23 license and third III.B.4.ii.e. 24 ¶¶ 113–114 party names Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 25 privacy – amount of PREJUDICE, supra § 26 damages and third III.B.4.ii.e. ¶¶ 115, 118 party names 27 28 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for third 4 Trade secret and party names and length of 5 privacy – third party agreement, supra § names, length of the III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED 6 agreement, royalty for royalty rates, minimum 7 rates and minimum guarantee values and guarantee and damages calculations, 8 ¶¶ 119–120 damage calculations supra § III.B.4.ii.a. 9 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for third 10 party names and length of 11 agreement, supra § III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED 12 for royalty rates, minimum 13 guarantee values and damages calculations, 14 supra § III.B.4.ii.a; 15 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for 16 Trade secret and “business trade secrets” 17 privacy – third party See In re Sotera Wireless, names, length of the Inc., 591 B.R. at 462 18 agreement, royalty (“[T]he mere statement 19 rates and minimum that something is a trade guarantee and secret falls far short of 20 damage calculations what the Court needs to 21 and business trade find that [movant] has met ¶¶ 121–122 secrets its burden of proof. . .”). 22 DENIED WITHOUT 23 PREJUDICE, for third Trade secret and party names and length of 24 privacy – third party agreement, supra § 25 names, length of the III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED agreement, royalty for royalty rates, minimum 26 rates and minimum guarantee values and 27 guarantee and damages calculations, ¶¶ 124–127 damage calculations supra § III.B.4.ii.a 28 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 Trade secret and GRANTED, supra § privacy – damage III.B.4.ii.a 4 ¶ 127 calculations 5 Trade secret and GRANTED, supra § privacy – damage III.B.4.ii.a 6 calculations and 7 Pixels sales data ¶¶ 132–133 spreadsheet 8 Privacy – third parties DENIED WITHOUT 9 p. 81 – List of and expert witness PREJUDICE, supra § interviewees information III.B.4.ii.e. 10 DENIED WITHOUT 11 Schedule 1 Trade secret and PREJUDICE for third (Table of privacy – third party party names, length of 12 Upper names and scope of agreement, and scope of 13 Deck’s license and license, supra § Sublicenses) agreement length III.B.4.ii.e-f; 14 DENIED WITHOUT 15 PREJUDICE for third party names and length of 16 Trade secret and agreement, supra § 17 Schedule privacy – third party III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED 2.1(Sales names and scope of for royalty rates, minimum 18 and Royalties license and royalty guarantee values and 19 –Trends and payment damages calculations, International) information supra § III.B.4.ii.a. 20 Schedule 2.2 GRANTED, supra § 21 (Sales III.B.4.ii.a 22 and Trade secret and Royalties) privacy – sales data 23 Schedule 3 Trade secret and GRANTED, supra § 24 (Pixel Sales – privacy – Pixels sales III.B.4.ii.a Detail) data 25 Schedule 3.1 GRANTED, supra § 26 (Pixels Sales III.B.4.ii.a – Sales by Trade secret and 27 Product privacy – Pixels sales 28 Type) data 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 Schedule 3.2 GRANTED, supra § (Pixels Sales Trade secret and III.B.4.ii.a 4 – Sales by privacy – Pixels sales 5 Artist Name) data Schedule 3.3 GRANTED, supra § 6 (Pixels Sales III.B.4.ii.a 7 – Sales by Trade secret and Artwork privacy – Pixels sales 8 Name) data 9 Schedule 3.4 GRANTED, supra § (Pixels Sales III.B.4.ii.a 10 – List of Trade secret and 11 Images by privacy – Pixels sales Artist) data 12 Email chain GRANTED, since sealed 13 between exhibits relate to Upper Upper Deck and its licensors’ 14 Deck’s proprietary business 15 president and negotiations, supra §§ Jump 23, Inc. III.B.4.ii.b-d. 16 The scope of 17 the Jordan license and 18 enforcement 19 of the license are being The scope of the 20 discussed by Jordan license and 21 upper enforcement of the management license are being 22 in a trade discussed by upper 23 secret management in a discussion, trade secret 24 which would discussion, which 25 Exhibit 105 be would be to Pixels’ advantageous advantageous for 26 Motion to for competitors and 27 Seal (ECF competitors unscrupulous actors No. 78) and to know. 28 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 unscrupulous actors to 4 know. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Pixels’ Sales GRANTED, since the Data, which It is the same Court has previously 13 the entire document the Court sealed the same document, 14 document previously granted a supra § III.B.4.i. should be Motion to Seal-- 15 filed under Additionally, 16 seal in Plaintiff seeks to conformity redact Exhibit 9 17 with the attached to Plaintiff’s 18 Court’s July Motion for Summary 28, 2025 Adjudication. (ECF 19 Order as it is No. 81.) Defendant 20 the same responds in support, document the noting that this 21 Court document contains 22 previously confidential sales and granted a contributor 23 Motion to information. (See 24 Seal-- ECF No. 87-1 at ¶5.) Exhibit F to Additionally, Exhibit 9 clearly 25 Upper Plaintiff contains Defendant’s 26 Deck’s seeks to sales data. (ECF No. Motion to redact 83-4.) The Court 27 Seal (ECF Exhibit 9 finds that protecting 28 No. 102) attached to this sales data 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 Plaintiff’s presents a compelling Motion for reason to seal. 4 Summary 5 Adjudication. (ECF No. 6 81.) 7 Defendant responds 8 in support, 9 noting that this 10 document 11 contains confidential 12 sales and 13 contributor information. 14 (See ECF No. 15 87-1 at ¶5.) Exhibit 9 16 clearly 17 contains Defendant’s 18 sales data. 19 (ECF No. 83- 4.) The Court 20 finds that 21 protecting this sales data 22 presents a 23 compelling reason to 24 seal. 25 Exhibit M to Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT Upper privacy – date of PREJUDICE for date of 26 Deck’s agreement and agreement, supra § 27 Motion to ¶ 17 and alternatives to III.B.4.ii.f footnote 23 signatures 28 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 Seal (ECF Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT No. 102) privacy – third party PREJUDICE, supra § 4 ¶ 19 names III.B.4.ii.e 5 DENIED WITHOUT Trade secret and PREJUDICE, supra § 6 ¶ 23 and privacy – pixels sales III.B.4.i. 7 footnote 46 data and damage and 47 calculations 8 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 9 privacy – Pixels sales PREJUDICE, supra §§ data and damage III.B.4.i, III.B.4.ii.c. 10 calculations and 11 alternatives to ¶¶ 32–33 signatures 12 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 13 privacy – scope of PREJUDICE, supra § Footnote 61 license III.B.4.ii.f. 14 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 15 privacy – pixels sales PREJUDICE, supra § data and damage III.B.4.i. 16 ¶¶ 34–35 calculations 17 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT privacy – pixels sales PREJUDICE, supra § 18 data and damage III.B.4.i 19 ¶¶ 42–43 calculations Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 20 privacy – third party PREJUDICE, supra § 21 names and length of III.B.4.ii.e-f ¶ 47 agreement 22 DENIED WITHOUT 23 PREJUDICE, for third Trade secret and party names and length of 24 privacy – third party agreement, supra § 25 names and length of III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED agreement and for royalty rates, minimum 26 minimum guarantee guarantee values, supra § 27 ¶¶ 48–50 and royalty rates III.B.4.ii.a 28 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for third 4 Trade secret and party names and length of 5 privacy – third party agreement, supra § names and length of III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED 6 agreement and for royalty rates, minimum 7 minimum guarantee guarantee values, supra § ¶¶ 50–53 and royalty rates III.B.4.ii.a 8 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 9 privacy – third party PREJUDICE, supra § names and length of III.B.4.ii.e-f 10 ¶¶ 54–55 agreement 11 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for third 12 party names and length of 13 Trade secret and agreement, supra § privacy – third party III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED 14 names and length of for royalty rates, minimum 15 agreement and guarantee values and minimum guarantee damages calculations, 16 ¶¶ 56–57 and royalty rates supra § III.B.4.ii.a 17 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for third 18 Trade secret and party names and length of 19 privacy – third party agreement, supra § names and length of III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED 20 agreement and for royalty rates, minimum 21 minimum guarantee guarantee values, supra § ¶¶ 57–59 and royalty rates III.B.4.ii.a 22 DENIED WITHOUT 23 PREJUDICE, for third Trade secret and party names and length of 24 privacy – third party agreement, supra § 25 names and length of III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED agreement and for royalty rates, minimum 26 minimum guarantee guarantee values, supra § 27 ¶¶ 60–62 and royalty rates III.B.4.ii.a 28 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for third 4 Trade secret and party names and length of 5 privacy – third party agreement, supra § names and length of III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED 6 agreement and for royalty rates, minimum 7 minimum guarantee guarantee values, supra § ¶¶ 62–64 and royalty rates III.B.4.ii.a 8 Trade secret and GRANTED, supra § 9 privacy – damage III.B.4.ii.a ¶ 64 calculation 10 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 11 privacy – third party PREJUDICE, supra § ¶ 65 names III.B.4.ii.e 12 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 13 privacy – third party PREJUDICE, supra § names and length of III.B.4.ii.e-f 14 ¶¶ 66–67 agreement 15 DENIED WITHOUT 16 PREJUDICE, for third Trade secret and party names, supra § 17 privacy – third party III.B.4.ii.e; GRANTED names and for royalty rates, minimum 18 minimum guarantee guarantee values, supra § 19 ¶¶ 67–69 and royalty rates III.B.4.ii.a 20 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for third 21 Trade secret and party names and length of 22 privacy – third party agreement, supra § names and length of III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED 23 agreement and for royalty rates, minimum 24 minimum guarantee guarantee values, supra § ¶¶ 69–71 and royalty rates III.B.4.ii.a 25 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 26 privacy – third party PREJUDICE, supra § ¶ 71 names III.B.4.ii.e 27 28 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT privacy – third party PREJUDICE, supra § 4 ¶¶ 71–72 names III.B.4.ii.e 5 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for third 6 Trade secret and party names and length of 7 privacy – third party agreement, supra § names and length of III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED 8 agreement and for royalty rates, minimum 9 minimum guarantee guarantee values, supra § ¶¶ 72–74 and royalty rates III.B.4.ii.a 10 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 11 privacy – third party PREJUDICE, supra § ¶ 75 names III.B.4.ii.e 12 DENIED WITHOUT 13 Trade secret and PREJUDICE, for third privacy – third party party names; and scope 14 names and length of and length of agreement, 15 agreement and supra § III.B.4.ii.e-f; personal GRANTED for personal 16 ¶ 77 and requirements and requirements supra § 17 footnote 175 scope of license III.B.4.ii.d. 18 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for third 19 Trade secret and party names and length of 20 privacy – third party agreement, supra § names and length of III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED 21 agreement and for royalty rates, minimum minimum guarantee guarantee values, supra § 22 ¶¶ 77–78 and royalty rates III.B.4.ii.a 23 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 24 privacy –length of PREJUDICE, supra § ¶ 79 agreement III.B.4.ii.f 25 Trade secret and GRANTED, supra § 26 privacy – personal III.B.4.ii.d. ¶ 80 requirements 27 28 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT privacy –length of PREJUDICE, supra § 4 ¶ 81 agreement III.B.4.ii.f 5 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for third 6 party names, supra § 7 Trade secret and III.B.4.ii.e; GRANTED privacy – third party for royalty rates, supra § 8 ¶ 82 names, royalty rates III.B.4.ii.a. 9 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT privacy –length of PREJUDICE, supra § 10 ¶ 89 agreement III.B.4.ii.f 11 Trade secret sales GRANTED, supra § ¶ 89 data from Pixels III.B.4.ii.a. 12 DENIED WITHOUT 13 PREJUDICE, for third 14 party names, supra § III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED 15 Trade secret and for sales data supra § privacy –sales data III.B.4.i, royalty rates, 16 and third party names minimum guarantee 17 ¶¶ 91–92 and royalty rates values, supra § III.B.4.ii.a 18 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for third 19 party names and length of 20 agreement, supra § Trade secret and III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED 21 privacy –sales data for sales data, supra § 22 and third party names III.B.4.i, and minimum and royalty rates and guarantee values, supra § 23 ¶¶ 92–94 minimum guarantees III.B.4.ii.a 24 GRANTED, supra §§ Trade secret and III.B.4.i, III.B.4.ii.a 25 privacy –sales data ¶¶ 95–97 and royalty rates 26 GRANTED, supra §§ 27 III.B.4.i, III.B.4.ii.a Trade secret and 28 ¶¶ 98–100 privacy –sales data 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 and royalty rates and damage calculations 4 5 Sales data and GRANTED, supra § 6 Exhibit 3 damage calculations III.B.4.i 7 Sales data and GRANTED, supra § Exhibit 4 damage calculations III.B.4.i 8 Sales data and GRANTED, supra § 9 Exhibit 5.1 damage calculations III.B.4.i Sales data and GRANTED, supra § 10 Exhibit 5.2 damage calculations III.B.4.i 11 Sales data and GRANTED, supra § Exhibit 6.1 damage calculations III.B.4.i 12 Sales data and GRANTED, supra § 13 Exhibit 6.2 damage calculations III.B.4.i Sales data and GRANTED, supra § 14 Exhibit 7.1 damage calculations III.B.4.i 15 Sales data and GRANTED, supra § Exhibit 7.2 damage calculations III.B.4.i 16 DENIED WITHOUT 17 PREJUDICE, for third party names, supra § 18 III.B.4.ii.e; GRANTED 19 for sales data, supra § Third party names III.B.4.i, and royalty 20 and sales data and amounts, supra § 21 Exhibit 9 royalty amounts III.B.4.ii.a DENIED WITHOUT 22 PREJUDICE, for third 23 party names, supra § III.B.4.ii.e; GRANTED 24 for sales data, supra § 25 Third party names III.B.4.i, and royalty and sales data and amounts, supra § 26 Exhibit 10 royalty amounts III.B.4.ii.a 27 28 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. 2 Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for third 4 party names and length of 5 Trade secret and agreement, supra § privacy – third party III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED 6 names and length of for sales data, supra § 7 agreement and III.B.4.i, and royalty minimum guarantee amounts, supra § 8 Exhibit 11.1 and royalty rates III.B.4.ii.a 9 Sales data and royalty GRANTED, supra §§ Exhibit 11.2 rate III.B.4.i, III.B.4.ii.a 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28