ATL. COAST CONF. v. BD. OF TRS. OF FLA. STATE UNIV., 2024 NCBC 22

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
23CV040918-590
ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.
ORDER AND OPINION
ON MOTIONS TO SEAL
1. 	THIS 	MATTER 	is 	before 	the 	Court 	upon 	Plaintiff 	Atlantic 	Coast
Conference’s (the “ACC”) Amended Motion to Seal,1 the parties’ Joint Consent Motion
to Provisionally Seal ECF No. 19.1 (the “Joint Motion to Seal”),2 and the ACC’s
Motion to Seal Summary Exhibit (the “Second Motion to Seal”)3 (collectively, the
“Motions to Seal”), in the above-captioned case.
2. 	Having considered the Motions to Seal, the parties’ briefs in support of and
in opposition to the Motions to Seal, the appropriate evidence of record on the Motions
to Seal, and the arguments of counsel at the hearing on the Motions to Seal, the Court,
in the exercise of its discretion and for the reasons set forth below, hereby GRANTS
in part and DENIES in part the ACC’s Amended Motion to Seal, GRANTS the
1 (Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal, ECF No. 9.)
2 (Joint Consent Mot. Provisionally Seal ECF No. 19.1 [hereinafter “Joint Mot. Seal”], ECF
No. 22.)
3 (Pl.’s Mot. Seal Summ. Ex., ECF No. 25.)
Atl. Coast Conf. v. Bd. of Trs. of Fla. State Univ., 2024 NCBC 22.

Joint Motion to Seal, and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the ACC’s Second
Motion to Seal.
Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, by James P. Cooney, III, Sarah
Motley Stone, and Patrick Grayson Spaugh, and Lawson Huck Gonzalez,
PLLC, by Charles Alan Lawson, for Plaintiff Atlantic Coast Conference.
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, by Christopher C. Lam, C. Bailey
King, Jr., Hanna E. Eickmeier, and Brian M. Rowlson, and Greenberg
Traurig, P.A., by David C. Ashburn, John K. Londot, and Peter G. Rush,
for Defendant Board of Trustees of Florida State University.
Moore & Van Allen, by James P. McLoughlin, Jr., and Cravath, Swaine
& Moore LLP, by J. Wesley Earnhardt and David H. Korn, for Non-Party
ESPN, Inc.
Bledsoe, Chief Judge.
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
3. 	On 21 December 2023, the ACC provisionally filed under seal its Complaint
for Declaratory Judgment (the “Complaint”) and nine supporting exhibits.4 	That
same day, the ACC filed a Motion to Seal its Complaint and three of the supporting
exhibits.5 The ACC also filed (i) a public, redacted version of its Complaint; (ii) public,
unredacted versions of Exhibits 1, 2, 4, and 7–9; and (iii) cover pages stating that
Exhibits 3, 5, and 6 were filed under seal.6
4 (Compl. Declaratory J. [hereinafter “Compl.”], ECF No. 2 (sealed).)
5 (Pl.’s Mot. Seal, ECF No. 5.)
6 (Compl., ECF No. 3 (public redacted).)

4. 	On 17 January 2024, the ACC provisionally filed under seal its First
Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) and the FAC’s sixteen supporting exhibits.7 	The
Amended Motion to Seal8 and a Memorandum in Support of Amended Motion to Seal
(the “ACC’s Brief in Support”)9 accompanied these filings. 	The ACC also filed (i)
public, redacted versions of the FAC10 and Exhibits 8, 9, 12, and 14;11 (ii) public,
unredacted versions of Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, and 15;12 and (iii) provisionally
sealed versions of Exhibits 3, 5, 6, and 16.13 On 1 February 2024, Defendant Board
of Trustees of Florida State University (the “FSU Board”) filed a Brief in Opposition
to the Amended Motion to Seal (the “FSU Board’s Opposition Brief”).14
5. 	Having reviewed the Amended Motion to Seal, the ACC’s Brief in Support,
and the FSU Board’s Opposition Brief, the Court entered an Interim Order on
Amended Motion to Seal (the “Interim Order”) on 1 February 2024, directing the
7 (First Am. Compl. [hereinafter “FAC”], ECF No. 11 (sealed).)
8 (Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal.)
9 (Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal [hereinafter “Br. Supp. Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal”], ECF No.
10.)
10 (FAC, ECF No. 12 (public redacted).)
11 (FAC Exs. 8, 9, 12, 14, ECF Nos. 12.8 (public redacted), 12.9 (public redacted), 12.12 (public
redacted), 12.14 (public redacted).)
12 (FAC Exs. 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, ECF Nos. 12.1 (public unredacted), 12.2 (public
unredacted), 12.4 (public unredacted), 12.7 (public unredacted), 12.10 (public unredacted),
12.11 (public unredacted), 12.13 (public unredacted), 12.15 (public unredacted).)
13 (FAC Exs. 3, 5, 6, 16, ECF Nos. 12.3 (sealed), 12.5 (sealed), 12.6 (sealed), 12.16 (sealed).)
14 (Def.’s Br. Opp’n Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal, ECF No. 15.)

ACC, if it had not already done so, to serve a copy of its Amended Motion to Seal on
third parties ESPN, Inc. and ESPN Enterprises, Inc. (together, “ESPN”) and notify
ESPN of its right to file a supporting brief under Business Court Rule (“BCR”) 5.2(c).15
The Interim Order also directed the ACC to file a certificate of service of the same on
the Court’s electronic docket and permitted ESPN to file a brief in support of the
Amended Motion to Seal.16 Four days later, the Court entered a Scheduling Order in
which it set deadlines for the ACC to file a reply in support of its Amended Motion to
Seal and for the ACC and the FSU Board to respond, should they so choose, to any
brief in support of the Amended Motion to Seal filed by ESPN.17
6. 	On 5 February 2024, the ACC filed its Certificate of Service18 and, one week
later, filed its Reply in Support of Amended Motion to Seal (the “ACC’s Reply”)19 with
two supporting exhibits.20 	The ACC sought to seal one of those exhibits in the
accompanying Second Motion to Seal.21 	ESPN filed its Memorandum of Law in
Support of Amended Motion to Seal (the “ESPN’s Brief in Support”)22 with three
15 (See Interim Order Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal ¶¶ 8(a), (b), ECF No. 16.)
16 (See Interim Order Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal ¶¶ 8(a), (b).)
17 (See Scheduling Order ¶¶ 6(a), (b), ECF No. 18.)
18 (Certificate Serv., ECF No. 17.)
19 (Reply Supp. Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal, ECF No. 24.)
20 (Reply Supp. Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal Exs. A, B, ECF Nos. 24.1, 24.2 (sealed).)
21 (See Pl.’s Mot. Seal Summ. Ex. at 1.)
22 (ESPN’s Mem. Law Supp. Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal [hereinafter “ESPN’s Br. Supp.”], ECF No.
29.)

supporting exhibits23 on 22 February 2024. Eleven days later, the ACC filed its Reply
to ESPN’s Brief in Support24 with two supporting exhibits,25 and the FSU Board filed
its Reply to ESPN’s Brief in Support26 with a single supporting exhibit.27
7. 	During this same period, the FSU Board filed its Motion to Dismiss or, in
the Alternative, Stay the Action (the “Motion to Dismiss”),28 a supporting brief,29 and
two supporting exhibits30 on 7 February 2024. 	Exhibit 1 to the Motion to Dismiss
was filed provisionally under seal and, two days later, the parties filed the Joint
Motion to Seal this exhibit.31 On 12 February 2024, the Court entered an Order on
Joint Motion to Seal, directing that Exhibit 1 to the Motion to Dismiss remain under
seal pending the Court’s determination of the ACC’s Amended Motion to Seal.32 The
FSU Board filed a public, redacted version of Exhibit 1 on 20 February 2024.33
23 (ESPN’s Br. Supp. Exs. A–C, ECF Nos. 29.1–.3.)
24 (Pl.’s Reply ESPN’s Br. Supp., ECF No. 32.)
25 (Pl.’s Reply ESPN’s Br. Supp. Exs. A–B, ECF Nos. 32.1, .2.)
26 (Def.’s Reply ESPN’s Br. Supp., ECF No. 37.)
27 (Def.’s Reply ESPN’s Br. Supp. Ex. 1, ECF No. 37.1.)
28 (Def.’s Mot. Dismiss or, in the Alt., Stay Action [hereinafter “Def.’s Mots.”], ECF No. 19.)
29 (Def.’s Br. Supp. Def.’s Mots., ECF No. 20.)
30 (Def.’s Mots. Exs. 1, 2, ECF Nos. 19.1 (sealed), 19.2.)
31 (See Joint Mot. Seal 1.)
32 (See Order Joint Mot. Seal, ECF No. 26.)
33 (See Def.’s Mots. Ex. 1, ECF No. 28 (public redacted).)

8. 	The Court held a hearing on the Motions to Seal on 22 March 2024 at which
all parties were represented by counsel (the “Hearing”).34 	The Motions to Seal are
now ripe for resolution.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
9. 	Documents filed in the courts of this State are “open to the inspection of the
public[,]” 	except 	as 	prohibited 	by 	law. 	N.C.G.S. 	§ 7A-109(a); 	see 	Virmani 	v.
Presbyterian Health Servs. Corp., 350 N.C. 449, 463 (1999). 	Nevertheless, “a trial
court may, in the proper circumstances, shield portions of court proceedings and
records from the public[.]” France v. France, 209 N.C. App. 406, 413 (2011) (emphasis
omitted) (quoting Virmani, 350 N.C. at 463). 	“The determination of whether
[documents] should be filed under seal is within the discretion of the trial court.”
Taylor v. Fernandes, 2018 NCBC LEXIS 4, at *4 (N.C. Super. Ct. Jan. 18, 2018).
10. 	BCR 5 governs the process for filing documents under seal in this Court and
includes specific procedural instructions designed to ensure a proper balance between
the interests of the litigants and the public. “A person who seeks to have a document
sealed bears the burden of establishing the need for sealing the document.” 	BCR
5.1(c); see PDF Elec. & Supply Co. v. Jacobsen, 2020 NCBC LEXIS 80, at *4 (N.C.
Super. Ct. July 8, 2020). 	To meet this burden, the designating party must clearly
articulate “the circumstances that warrant sealing the document.” 	BCR 5.2(b)(2).
34 The Court also heard arguments at the Hearing on the FSU Board’s Motion to Dismiss.
(ECF No. 19.) The Court resolved this motion by separate order on 4 April 2024. (See Order
and Op. Def.’s Mots., ECF No. 56.)

“Cryptic or conclusory claims of confidentiality won’t do.” 	Addison Whitney, LLC v.
Cashion, 2020 NCBC LEXIS 74, at *4 (N.C. Super. Ct. June 10, 2020). Instead, the
designating party must explain how public “disclosure [of the document] would cause
serious harm to [the] parties” or third parties to justify sealing. Bradshaw v. Maiden
Cap. Opportunity Fund, LP, 2020 NCBC LEXIS 42, at *10 (N.C. Super. Ct. Apr. 7,
2020) (second alteration in original) (quoting Lovell v. Chesson, 2019 NCBC LEXIS
76, at *5 (N.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 28, 2019)). 	The moving party must also file either a
public version of a provisionally sealed document in which “redactions and omissions
[are] as limited as practicable” or a notice of filing the document under seal that
contains a nonconfidential description of the document. BCR 5.2(f).
III.
ANALYSIS
11. 	The ACC seeks to seal excerpts of the following three agreements to which
the ACC and ESPN are parties: (i) the Second Amendment to the Multi-Media
Agreement, filed as Exhibit 3 to the Complaint35 and the FAC;36 (ii) the Amended and
Restated ACC-ESPN Multi-Media Agreement, filed as Exhibit 5 to the Complaint37
and the FAC;38 and (iii) the ACC-ESPN Network Agreement, filed as Exhibit 6 to the
35 (Compl. Ex. 3.)
36 (FAC Ex. 3.)
37 (Compl. Ex. 5.)
38 (FAC Ex. 5.)

Complaint39 and the FAC40 (collectively, the “Agreements”).41 The ACC also seeks to
seal those portions of the following documents that quote from or reference the
Agreements: (i) the Complaint;42 (ii) the FAC;43 (iii) a corresponding summary chart,
filed as Exhibit B to the ACC’s Reply;44 (iv) the complaint filed in related litigation in
Florida (the “Florida Action”), filed as Exhibit 16 to the FAC;45 and (v) the first
amended complaint filed in the Florida Action, filed as Exhibit 1 to the FSU Board’s
Motion to Dismiss (the “Florida FAC”).46
12. 	The FSU Board opposes sealing on several grounds. 	First, the FSU Board
argues that “because the ACC has shared . . . the terms of the . . . Agreements with
its members,” nine of which are public universities, “the Agreements necessarily
constitute public records and, as a result, cannot be sealed by this Court.”47 The FSU
Board further contends that the Agreements do not qualify for the trade secret
39 (Compl. Ex. 6.)
40 (FAC Ex. 6.)
41 (See Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal 1.)
42 (Compl.)
43 (FAC.)
44 (Reply Supp. Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal Ex. B.)
45 (FAC Ex. 16.)
46 (Def.’s Mots. Ex. 1; see Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal 1; Joint Mot. Seal 1; Pl.’s Mot. Seal Summ. Ex.
at 1.)
47 (Def.’s Br. Opp’n Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal 6; see Def.’s Reply ESPN’s Br. Supp. 2–13.)

exemption under either North Carolina’s or Florida’s public record laws.48 	Second,
the FSU Board argues that the ACC seeks to seal information that is already public.
The FSU Board asserts that the Agreements have been the subject of news articles
for years and that the pleadings in the Florida Action have been publicly available
since 22 December 2023 without any effort by the ACC or ESPN to seal them.49 Last,
the FSU Board contends that the ACC’s proposed redactions are overbroad and
inconsistent.50
13. 	The ACC and ESPN oppose the FSU Board’s arguments. First, they contend
that the Agreements are not subject to North Carolina’s and/or Florida’s public record
laws, but should the Court conclude that they are, they qualify for the trade secret
exemption under those laws.51 	Next, the ACC and ESPN assert that despite the
confidentiality provisions in the Agreements, the FSU Board disclosed confidential
terms from the Agreements when the FSU Board publicly filed its original complaint
and the Florida FAC in the Florida Action.52 As a result, the ACC contends that the
FSU Board improperly “seeks to have this Court adjudicate the merits of the [ACC]’s
claim for breach of confidentiality through a finding that there was not (and could not
48 (See Def.’s Br. Opp’n Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal 9–10; Def.’s Reply ESPN’s Br. Supp. 4–11.)
49 (See Def.’s Br. Opp’n Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal 10–15; Def.’s Reply ESPN’s Br. Supp. 7–8, 10–11.)
50 (See Def.’s Br. Opp’n Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal 12–14.)
51 (See Reply Supp. Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal 6–11; ESPN’s Br. Supp. 9–13; Pl.’s Reply ESPN’s Br.
Supp. 6–12.)
52 (See Br. Supp. Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal 1–2; Reply Supp. Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal 5; ESPN’s Br. Supp.
10; Pl.’s Reply ESPN’s Br. Supp. 1–2.)

be) 	any 	agreement 	to 	abide 	by 	the 	confidentiality 	provisions 	of 	the 	ESPN
Agreements.”53 	Last, the ACC and ESPN argue, and counsel for the FSU Board
conceded at the Hearing, that no court has ever declined to seal these or similar
agreements between athletic conferences and media companies in other litigation and
the Court finds no circumstances here that should compel this Court to be the first to
do so.54
14. 	As an initial matter, the Court agrees with the ACC that “a decision on th[e]
Motion[s to Seal] is limited to whether the interest of the [ACC] in protecting its
confidential and proprietary business information in the [provisionally sealed filings]
outweighs the qualified right of the public to [access] civil proceedings.”55 Although
the 	parties 	argued at length in their briefing and at the Hearing 	about 	the
applicability 	of 	the Florida 	and/or 	North 	Carolina 	public 	records 	laws 	to 	the
documents the ACC seeks to seal, these arguments are not suited for determination
on a motion to seal, particularly when, as discussed below, they seek to resolve the
merits of the ACC’s fourth cause of action alleging that the FSU Board breached its
confidentiality obligations to the ACC. The Court therefore declines to consider the
parties’ arguments concerning the Florida and North Carolina public records laws’
application to documents filed in this case in the current procedural context.
53 (Reply Supp. Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal 11; see Pl.’s Reply ESPN’s Br. Supp. 1–2.)
54 (See Br. Supp. Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal 4–5; Reply Supp. Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal 4; ESPN’s Br. Supp.
7–9.)
55 (Reply Supp. Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal 2.)

15. 	Turning then to the Motions to Seal, the ACC specifically seeks to seal
historical 	and 	prospective 	financial 	data 	and 	other 	material 	terms 	of 	the
Agreements.56 	According to the ACC, the Agreements are “the most sensitive,
proprietary, and commercially material agreements to which the ACC is a party[,]”
and public disclosure of this information would have a negative impact on “future
negotiations of the ACC’s television rights agreements” and “the ACC’s relationships
with its television partners if they were unable to rely on the ACC maintaining the
confidentiality of the agreements.”57 	The ACC also argues that disclosure would
“harm the ACC’s ability to compete with other conferences by allowing them to use
the information as leverage in negotiations,” thus gaining an “unfair advantage.”58
16. 	ESPN, a non-party, also seeks to seal the terms of the Agreements. ESPN
contends that its “live broadcasts are made possible, and are governed by, highly
sensitive agreements between ESPN and the leagues and organizations that own the
[media] rights” and that “ESPN competes vigorously with other sports networks for
those media rights[.]”59 	ESPN asserts that the Agreements are “textbook trade
secrets[ ]” and argues that public disclosure “would be destabilizing and harmful:
competing networks would gain a leg up on ESPN in the next round of negotiations
with 	rightsholders, 	and 	all 	other 	rightsholders 	negotiating 	with 	ESPN 	would
56 (See Br. Supp. Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal 3–6; Reply Supp. Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal 12–13.)
57 (Br. Supp. Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal 3 (quoting Br. Supp. Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal Ex. 1 ¶ 7).)
58 (Pl.’s Reply ESPN’s Br. Supp. 3.)
59 (ESPN’s Br. Supp. 1.)

capitalize on the knowledge of what specific terms ESPN has agreed to with—or has
not acquired from—others.”60 	ESPN emphasizes that its ability to “negotiate
favorable terms with television content providers” and “compete with other television
networks for content rights depends in significant part on ESPN’s ability to maintain
the secrecy of its various media rights agreements[.]”61
17. 	It is important to note that “the reason the court seals [documents] is not
because the parties have agreed to keep them confidential but instead because their
disclosure would cause serious harm to [the] parties” or third parties. 	Bradshaw,
2020 NCBC LEXIS 42, at *10 (alterations in original) (quoting Lovell, 2019 NCBC
LEXIS 76, at *5). 	“A corporation may possess a strong interest in preserving the
confidentiality of its proprietary and trade-secret information, which in turn may
justify partial sealing of court records.” 	Doe v. Doe, 263 N.C. App. 68, 91–92 (2018)
(quoting Co. Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 269 (2014)).
18. 	After careful and thorough review, the Court concludes that partial sealing
as requested by the ACC and ESPN is appropriate for several reasons. 	First,
financial information, pricing terms, and internal business strategies are included
within the categories that North Carolina courts have treated as confidential and
proprietary trade secrets that may warrant protection. 	See, e.g., GE Betz, Inc. v.
Conrad, 231 N.C. App. 214, 234 (2013) (holding “pricing information, customer
proposals, historical costs, and sales data” may constitute trade secrets); Sunbelt
60 (ESPN’s Br. Supp. 1.)
61 (ESPN’s Br. Supp. 3.)

Rentals, Inc., v. Head & Engquist Equip., L.L.C., 174 N.C. App. 49, 55–56 (2005)
(holding that “customer information, preferred customer pricing, employees’ salaries,
equipment rates, fleet mix information, budget information and structure of the
business” may constitute trade secrets); Lowder Constr., Inc. v. Phillips, 2019 NCBC
LEXIS 117, at *19 (N.C. Super. Ct. Dec. 30, 2019) (holding that “cost histories, bid
and pricing policies, operating margins and profits, sales and marketing strategies,
vendor 	pricing 	and 	relationship 	histories, 	and 	other 	confidential 	business
information” as a compilation may constitute a trade secret).
19. 	Second, the ACC and ESPN contend that the terms of the Agreements,
which serve as the basis for the ACC’s lawsuit against the FSU Board,62 are trade
secrets.63 	Under Chapter 66, “a court shall protect an alleged trade secret by
reasonable steps which may include . . . sealing the records of the action subject to
further court order[.]” N.C.G.S. § 66-156. In addition, the ACC alleges that the FSU
Board 	has 	breached 	its 	obligation 	to 	protect 	the 	confidentiality 	of 	the 	very
Agreements 	for 	which 	the 	ACC 	now 	seeks 	sealed 	treatment.64 	Although
“[i]nformation for which a claimant asserts trade secret protection can lose the benefit
of protection if it has been disclosed, publicly released, or publicly filed during
litigation[,]” Roundpoint Mortg. Co. v. Florez, 2016 NCBC LEXIS 18, at *39 (N.C.
Super. Ct. Feb. 18, 2016), the Court concludes that the FSU Board’s alleged improper
62 (See generally FAC.)
63 (See Reply Supp. Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal 7–11; ESPN’s Br. Supp. 4–9; Pl.’s Reply ESPN’s Br.
Supp. 6–7.)
64 (See FAC ¶¶ 213–31.)

disclosure of the terms of the Agreements in the Florida Action should not control
whether sealing is appropriate in this litigation, and the Court declines to determine
the merits of the ACC’s fourth cause of action through a motion to seal.
20. 	Third, numerous other courts, when considering requests to seal these and
similar agreements, have concluded that they constitute trade secrets that warrant
sealing. 	See, e.g., In re NCAA Athletic Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig., No. 4:14-
md-02541-CW, Non-Parties/Intervenors Fox Netws.’s Opp’n Pls.’ Mot. Compel Re
Fin. Docs., Broad., Media, and Sponsorship Conts., and Mktg. Docs. (N.D. Cal. July
18, 2016); In re NCAA Athletic Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig., No. 4:14-md-02541-
CW, Non-Party CBS Broad. Inc.’s Opp’n Pls.’ Mot. Compel Re Fin. Docs., Broad.,
Media, and Sponsorship Conts., and Mktg. Docs. (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2016); In re NCAA
Athletic Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig., No. 4:14-md-02541-CW, Stipulation and
Order Regarding Second Addendum to Stipulated Protective Order (N.D. Cal. Oct.
12, 2016); Bannon v. NCAA, No. C 09-3329 CW, Order Approving Stipulation;
Granting in Part Mot. Seal; Denying as Moot Mot. Intervene (N.D. Cal. June 17,
2014); In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name and Likeness Licensing Litig., No. 11-MC-
63, Mem. Op. and Order (M.D.N.C. June 18, 2012). While not controlling, the Court
finds these decisions persuasive.
21. 	Fourth, 	the 	privacy 	interests 	of 	non-party 	ESPN 	deserve 	special
consideration and weigh in favor of sealing. 	See, e.g., Golden Triangle #3, LLC v.
RMP-Mallard Pointe, LLC, 2021 NCBC LEXIS 118, *8 (N.C. Super. Ct. Apr. 12, 2021)
(recognizing that “special consideration should be given to the privacy interests of

non-parties” on sealing motions); United States v. Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47, 62 (2d Cir.
2013) (“Third-party privacy interests, in particular, have been referred to as a
venerable common law exception to the presumption of access and weigh heavily in a
court’s balancing equation[.]”) (cleaned up)). 	ESPN has offered evidence that “[o]ne
of ESPN’s fundamental business functions is to negotiate media agreements with
athletic conferences and other producers of athletic performances on as favorable
terms as possible[,]” and the Court agrees with ESPN that “the trade secrets and
highly sensitive commercial information contained in its agreements [should] not
become collateral damage in th[is] lawsuit.”65
22. 	The Court therefore concludes that sealing the excerpts of the Agreements
and those portions of the pleadings in this action and the Florida Action that quote
from or refer to the Agreements is appropriate.
23. 	Nevertheless, the Court agrees with the FSU Board that certain of the
ACC’s redactions are “arbitrary, inconsistent, and overbroad[.]”66 	For example, in
the Complaint and the FAC, the ACC inconsistently redacts general descriptions of
the amounts previously received by FSU under the Agreements at issue in this
litigation.67 Similarly, redactions of the terms “Grant of Rights Fee(s)/Payments” and
65 (ESPN’s Br. Supp. 2, 7; ESPN’s Br. Supp. Ex. A ¶¶ 4–14.)
66 (Def.’s Br. Opp’n Pl.’s Am. Mot. Seal 12–14.)
67 (Compare Compl. ¶ 64, and FAC ¶ 73, with Compl. Summary of Claims ¶¶ 3, 4, and FAC
Summary of Claims ¶ 5.)

“Rights Fee(s)” are applied inconsistently throughout the Complaint and the FAC.68
The Court will therefore direct the ACC to file revised public versions of the relevant
filings that do not redact these terms since they have been publicly disclosed in the
ACC’s own pleadings.
IV.
CONCLUSION
24. 	WHEREFORE, based on the above, the Court, in the exercise of its
discretion, hereby ORDERS as follows:
a. 	The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the ACC’s Amended
Motion to Seal as follows:
i. 	The Court GRANTS the ACC’s Amended Motion to Seal as to (i)
Exhibits 3, 5, and 6 to the Complaint, and (ii) Exhibits 3, 5, 6, and
16 to the FAC. 	These exhibits shall remain under seal pending
further order of the Court. Exhibits 3, 5, and 6 to the Complaint
and the FAC shall be accessible only to the Court and counsel of
record.
ii. 	The Court DENIES the ACC’s Amended Motion to Seal as to (i)
the monetary amount in paragraph 64 of the Complaint and
paragraph 73 of the FAC; and (ii) the terms “Grant of Rights
Fee(s)/Payments” and “Rights Fee(s)” in the first paragraph of the
Summary of Claims and paragraphs 14, 41, 42, and 69 of the
68 (Compare Compl. Summary of Claims ¶ 1, ¶¶ 14, 41, 42, 69, and FAC Summary of Claims
¶ 1, ¶¶ 14, 43, 44, 70, 73, 78, 110, with Compl. ¶¶ 61, 64, 87, 129, and FAC ¶ 186.)

Complaint, and in the first paragraph of the Summary of Claims
and paragraphs 14, 43, 44, 70, 73, 78, and 110 of the FAC. 	The
Court otherwise GRANTS the ACC’s Amended Motion to Seal as
to the Complaint and the FAC. 	These documents shall remain
under seal pending further order of the Court and shall be
accessible only to the Court and counsel of record.
iii. 	The ACC shall have through and including 15 April 2024 to file
revised public, redacted versions of the Complaint and the FAC
that 	contain 	the 	more 	limited 	redactions 	identified 	in 	the
preceding subparagraph.
b. 	The Court GRANTS the Joint Motion to Seal as to Exhibit 1 to the FSU
Board’s Motion to Dismiss, which shall remain under seal pending
further order of the Court.
c. 	The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the ACC’s Second
Motion to Seal as follows:
i. 	The Court DENIES the ACC’s Second Motion to Seal as to (i) the
monetary 	amount 	in 	paragraph 	64 	of 	the 	Complaint 	and
paragraph 73 of the FAC; and (ii) the terms “Grant of Rights
Fee(s)/Payments” and “Rights Fee(s)” in the first paragraph of the
Summary of Claims and paragraphs 14, 41, 42, and 69 of the
Complaint, and in the first paragraph of the Summary of Claims
and paragraphs 14, 43, 44, 70, 73, 78, and 110, of the FAC listed

in Exhibit B to the ACC’s Reply. The Court otherwise GRANTS
the ACC’s Second Motion to Seal. 	Exhibit B to the ACC’s Reply
shall remain under seal pending further order of the Court and
shall only be accessible to the Court and counsel of record.
ii. 	The ACC shall have through and including 15 April 2024 to file a
public, redacted version of Exhibit B to the ACC’s Reply that
contains the redactions identified in the preceding subparagraph.
SO ORDERED, this the 5th day of April, 2024.
/s/ Louis A. Bledsoe, III
Louis A. Bledsoe, III
Chief Business Court Judge