The Upper Deck Company v. Pixels.com, LLC

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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) PIXELS.COM, LLC, 15 Defendant.

17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Upper Deck Company’s (“Upper Deck”) renewed motion to seal. (ECF No. 114.) For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS IN 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 rights to use intellectual property assets associated with the brand of world-famous basketball player, Michael Jordan (“Jordan”), to develop sports memorabilia. More specifically, Pixels allegedly advertised and sold products appropriating Jordan’s likeness online without either Upper Deck’s or Jordan’s permission. (ECF No. 24 ¶¶ 25–35.) Upper 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 own trademarks—including Upper Deck’s logo. (Id. ¶ 11.)

1 On May 28, 2024, Upper Deck initiated this action against Defendant Pixels.com (“Pixels”). (ECF No. 1.) On October 1, 2024, Upper Deck filed the operative complaint in this action alleging causes of action, inter alia, for: (1) false advertising and unfair competition claims under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a); (2) trademark dilution 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) deprivation of rights of publicity under California common law; (6) unfair competition under California statutory, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq, and common law. (ECF No. 24.)

10 Throughout the course of this action, both parties filed motions to seal. (See ECF Nos. 75, 78, 81, 88, 91, 95, 97, 102, 107.) The Court partially ruled on Parties’ proposed 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 8, 2025. (ECF No. 114.) Upper Deck moved to seal specific portions of certain documents, 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 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 report of Pixels’ sales data (ECF No. 102, Ex. F). Pixels filed a response on August 13, 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 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘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 v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 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 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. When the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. 25 “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). As to this last category, courts have been willing to seal court filings containing confidential business material, “such as marketing strategies, product development plans, licensing agreements, and profit, cost, and margin data,” where the parties have been able to point to concrete factual information to justify sealing. See, e.g., Cohen v. Trump, No. 13-cv-2519-GPC-WVG, 2016 WL 3036302, at *5 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2016). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 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 elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents.” Id. at 1184. A blanket protective order is not itself sufficient to show “good cause,” let alone compelling reasons, for sealing particular documents. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133; San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., N. Dist., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court” upon consideration of the “relevant 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 forth in this Court’s Standing Order for filing documents under seal. See Standing Order of the Hon. Cynthia Bashant for Civil Cases § 5. These procedures limit sealing to “only those documents, or portions thereof, necessary to protect such sensitive information.” Id. Thus, although sometimes it may be appropriate to seal a document in its entirety, whenever possible, a party must redact. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183 (noting a preference for redactions so long as they “have the virtue of being limited and clear”); Murphy v. Kavo Am. Corp., No. 11-cv-00410-YGR, 2012 WL 1497489, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2012) (denying motion to seal exhibits but directing parties to redact confidential 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 or that a stipulated protective order was issued is insufficient cause for sealing.” Standing Order § 5.A (“§ 5.A”). “Parties often seek to seal a document only because another party designated the document as sensitive under a protective order . . . [i]n these circumstances, the moving party must first meet and confer with the designating party to determine whether the designating party maintains that any portion of the document must be filed under seal.” Id. Then, “the designating party must file a response to the sealing motion within seven days that satisfies the sealing standard . . . If no response is filed, the Court 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. 114), the designating party’s burden to respond to a sealing motion in § 5.A only applies to documents in which Pixels is the designating party. In Upper Deck’s renewed motion to seal and accompanying papers, Upper Decks’ attorney has indicated that the above documents were designated as “‘CONFIDENTIAL’ and/or ‘CONFIDENTIAL – FOR 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 confidentiality designations. Regardless, Pixels has filed an appropriate response (ECF No. 123) to all of the documents that Upper Deck has moved to seal in its renewed motion (ECF No. 114). Accordingly, the Court now finds that § 5.A of the Standing Order does 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 documents Upper Deck seeks to redact are correctly lodged on the public docket. (See ECF Nos. 110 at 4:26–5:7 (citing ECF Nos. 75, 78, 88, 97, and 107); 76 (lodged ECF No. 75), 82 (lodged ECF No. 78); 89 (lodged ECF No. 88); 98 (lodged ECF No. 97); 108 (lodged ECF No. 107); ECF Nos. 103-3 (lodged ECF No. 102, Ex. F); 103-5 (lodged ECF No. 102, Ex. M).) Accordingly, since Upper Deck seeks to seal those same documents in its renewed motion to seal (ECF No. 114), the Court now turns to evaluate whether Upper Deck’s justifications for sealing or redacting those documents provide sufficiently 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 documents to seal are filed in connection with Parties’ summary judgment motions (ECF Nos. 74, 79). See Pac. Marine Propellers, Inc. v. Wartsila Def., Inc., No. 17-CV-555-L- NLS, 2018 WL 11457880, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2018) (“The compelling reasons standard applies to all motions except those that are only ‘tangentially related to the merits of a case.’. . . Defendants’ summary judgment motion is more than tangentially related to the merits”) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). As such, the Court finds Upper Deck’s renewed motion to seal (ECF No. 114) is subject to the “compelling reasons” standard in 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 seal such documents. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; see also Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 (observing that the “common-law right of inspection has bowed before the power of a court to insure that its records” are not used as “sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing”); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1226– 28 (Fed.Cir. 2013) (holding that under Ninth Circuit law, detailed product-specific information and internal reports are appropriate to seal under the “compelling reasons” 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 information which is used in [the party]'s business, and which gives [the party] an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.” In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App'x 568, 569–70 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Restatement of Torts § 757, cmt. B); see also Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972) (adopting the Restatement definition and finding that “a detailed plan for the creation, promotion, 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 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 standing”); see also Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598– 599) (“sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing” 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 from “gaining insight into the parties' business model and strategy”); see also Garrity Power Servs. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 21-MC-80159-JSC, 2021 WL 3473937, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2021) (“confidential business information in the form of ‘license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies’ is sealable”).

19 However, not all business information is so confidential or sensitive that it must be 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, information about a litigant's "product design and source code and highly confidential and competitively sensitive business information including usage data," in the absence of demonstrating “specific compelling reasons”); GoDaddy.com LLC v. RPost Commc'ns Ltd., No. 14-00126, 2014 WL 2117349, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 21, 2014) ("[A] party's allegations that material is 'confidential' or 'business information' are insufficient to justify sealing court records containing such material unless the party proves the existence of compelling reasons such as those set forth in Kamakana.... "[O]nly in extremely limited 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 data are commonly sealed. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App'x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008). For information that falls outside of those categories, movants must particularly allege how their proposed redactions relate to confidential information that 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 claims of privilege or withholding of information must be explained with particularity as to why that information should be protected pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A)”); see 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 of the redacted information in this record as confidential business information, but not for the broad redactions HII proposes.”).

15 Importantly, “[t]he proponent of sealing bears the burden with respect to sealing. A 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 information” may be sealed. Standing Order § 5.A. As such, whenever possible, the moving party must redact only what is necessary. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183; Murphy, 2012 WL 1497489, at *2–3. Redactions must be narrowly tailored such that only information that meets the compelling reasons standard is redacted. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183 (highlighting the “limited and clear” nature and specificity of the redactions); ImprimisRx, LLC v. OSRX, Inc., No. 21-cv-01305-BAS-DL, 2023 WL 7029210, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2023) (rejecting redactions that were insufficiently tailored). The moving party must provide the compelling reason justifying the proposed redactions. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135.

1 Litigation predicated upon contracts cannot be conducted in secret. JBS Packerland, Inc. v. Phillips Cattle Co., Inc., No. 24-cv-01299-BAS-MSB, 2024 WL 4280960, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2024). The public has the right to know the gist of the underlying agreements in order to understand the court’s rulings. Id. Accordingly, mere vague or ambiguous references to sealed documents, without any discussion of the substance of the sealed documents, do not meet the compelling reasons standard. See Nia v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 21-cv-1799-BAS-BGS, 2024 WL 171659, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024); ImprimisRx, LLC, 2023 WL 7029210, at *5. Information already available to the public 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 source but instead developed with a substantial amount of time, effort, and money.” Yeiser Rsch. & Dev. LLC v. Teknor Apex Co., 281 F. Supp. 3d 1021, 1046 (S.D. Cal. 2017). Here, it is apparent that Pixels has expended substantial effort to calculate its sales data and gross revenue from the various spreadsheets, tables, and expert reports Upper Deck moves to 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— including in sealing Exhibit F to Upper Deck’s motion to seal (ECF No. 102), which the Court has previously found to be sealable (ECF No. 110 at 11:4-6). Along the same vein, the Court also GRANTS sealing experts’ damages calculations based upon Pixels’ 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 when such terms provide a plan for the formation and sale of contracts. In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App'x at 569–70 (finding license agreement to be a trade secret); France Telecom S.A. v. Marvell Semiconductor Inc., No. 12-CV-04967-WHO, 2014 WL 4965995, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2014) (“the information at issue—terms of a license agreement— constitutes trade secrets and is properly sealed”). Those terms may constitute trade secrets because their public disclosure may hinder the trade secret holder’s market competitiveness and participation. See e.g., In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig., No. C 09-1967 CW, 2014 WL 662545, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2014) (“Because the public disclosure of some of these terms may undermine NCAA's ability to negotiate future 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 can be sealed. For example, if certain terms are “otherwise publicly known,” they may not be sealable. Huawei Techs., Co, Ltd v. Samsung Elecs. Co, Ltd., 340 F. Supp. 3d 934, 1004 (N.D. Cal. 2018). Additionally, if terms of licensing agreements that appear to be boilerplate contractual terms, courts may require the moving party to “explain[] why [those] provisions are so unique to that agreement that disclosure would cause significant harm.” Id. Further, even when courts have found licensing terms to constitute trade secrets, they have still limited permissible redactions to only specific portions of those clauses. In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig., 2014 WL 662545, at *1 (“only the specific dollar amounts. . . may be sealed”); O'Bannon v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, No. C 09-3329 CW, 2014 WL 12997312, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2014) (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 guaranteed minimum payment terms” are sealable trade secrets. In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App'x at 569–70; see also Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972) (adopting the Restatement definition and finding that “a detailed plan for the creation, promotion, financing, and sale of contracts” constitutes a trade secret) (citing Whyte v. Schlage Lock 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 minimum guarantee and compensation terms. See In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & 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 values of royalty rates, minimum guarantee, and compensation should also be sealed in 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 licensor for review and approval prior to sale distribution. The Court finds that like terms of a licensing agreement providing royalty rates and minimum guarantees, terms detailing the process through which Upper Deck—as licensee of certain intellectual property assets—submits its products for review by its licensor can constitute a trade secret. Those terms provide a blueprint for product development strategy, which if revealed, could provide competitors an economic advantage. In re Hydroxycut Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 09md2087 BTM (AJB), 2011 WL 864897, *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2011) (finding compelling reasons to seal documents containing information revealing business and marketing strategy and product development); see also In re ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. CV1105379MMMAGRX, 2014 WL 12577132, at *5 (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2014) (finding compelling reasons to seal given “the inclusion of trade secrets such as a company's internal strategies, marketing research, sales data, and product development plans”). Accordingly, 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 alternatives that its licensor agreed for Michael Jordan to contribute for the development of Upper Deck’s products and services. Here, the Court also finds that terms related to the provision of signatures are part of the product development process. In re Hydroxycut Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 2011 WL 864897, *2 (finding compelling reasons to seal documents containing information revealing business and marketing strategy and product 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 its licensor agreed for Michael Jordan to contribute for the development of Upper Deck’s products and services. Here, the Court also finds that terms related to the provision of personal services are part of the business and product development processes. In re Hydroxycut Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 2011 WL 864897, *2 (finding compelling reasons to seal documents containing information revealing business and marketing strategy and product development). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS sealing personal 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 movant “provide[s] a particularized showing that specific harm will result if the [identities are] made publicly available.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846 LHK PSG, 2012 WL 4120541, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012); see also Fitzhenry-Russell v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc., No. 17-CV-00564 NC, 2018 WL 10472795, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2018) (“The identity of Dr. Pepper's third-party vender, Givaudan is not sealable as a trade secret under the compelling reasons standard”). Here, Upper Deck has not provided any justification for how revealing the identities of third parties in the contracts would result in particularized harm to its market position. Further, Upper Deck has failed to allege how third-party information involves any other privacy interests that “outweigh the traditional right of public access” in Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. See also 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 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 circumstance, such as when the “existence of the agreement[s]. . . [are] not otherwise publicly known,” Upper Deck has failed to allege any such circumstances here. See Huawei Techs., Co, Ltd v. Samsung Elecs. Co, Ltd., 340 F. Supp. 3d 934, 1004 (N.D. Cal. 2018). Thus, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Upper Deck’s requested 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, 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 sealed if” their dissemination would create a competitive disadvantage. Id. The excerpts Upper Deck seeks to seal regarding sublicensing, agreement dates, and agreement term lengths are common provisions in licensing agreements. Cf Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., No. 5:21-CV-04874-EJD, 2022 WL 689005, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2022) (“parties provide no support for why a general description of the nature of the Licensing Agreement—particularly a general description that reveals provisions and terms common to virtually all patent licensing agreements—should be sealed.”) While it may be true that competitors could gain a commercial advantage upon discovering the term length of the agreements at issue in this litigation, Upper Deck has not made a particularized showing of why that may be beyond merely noting that the 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 that something is a trade secret falls far short of what the Court needs to find that [movant] has met its burden of proof. . .”). Additionally, Upper Deck does not provide additional reasoning for why such terms should be sealed—meaning Upper Deck has failed to overcome the presumption of public access. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. Thus, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Upper Deck’s requests to redact provisions regarding 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 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 a trade secret falls far short of what the Court needs to find that [movant] has met its burden of proof. . .”); cf GoDaddy.com LLC v. RPost Commc'ns Ltd., No. CV-14-00126-PHX- JAT, 2016 WL 1158851, at *5 (D. Ariz. Mar. 24, 2016) (“Whether Mr. Smith properly apportioned damages is an issue that GoDaddy strongly disputes. . . and thus, the public has a high interest in this information to understand the judicial process. In the absence of compelling reasons as to why this information merits sealing, the Court will not authorize Exhibit 4 to be sealed.”).

11 Thus, the Court finds Upper Deck has failed to meet its burden of proof to overcome the “traditional right of public access,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178, and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Upper Deck’s request to seal damages provisions of licensing agreements.

15 iii. Lease Agreement Terms 16 Upper Deck moves to seal portions of ECF Nos. 75, 78, Ex. 10 regarding commercial lease agreements, including the text detailing the amount of security deposit, length of term of the agreement, and the amount of rent. Courts within the Ninth Circuit have held that, without further explaining why terms of a lease should be subject to sealing, movants cannot “outweigh the traditional right of public access” by merely stating that such terms are confidential. MTO Summerlin LLC v. Shops at Summerlin N., LP, No. 218CV00737GMNPAL, 2019 WL 1261105, at *4 (D. Nev. Mar. 19, 2019) (applying Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). Similarly, here, Upper Deck does not explain how lease terms in the record constitute either trade secrets or otherwise confidential information that 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 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 ascertainable from a public source” such that it is a trade secret, or that such data should 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 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 ‘how a competitor would use th[e] information to obtain an unfair advantage’ is insufficient.” Hodges v. Apple, Inc., No. 13–cv–01128–WHO, 2013 WL 6070408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013). Since Upper Deck has not provided reasoning for how the email chain discussion would be “advantageous for competitors and unscrupulous actors to know” beyond stating as such (ECF No. 114 at 9:3-7), the Court also DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE sealing Exhibit 105 to Pixels’ motion to seal (ECF No. 78)— 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 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 Deck’s proposed redactions.

IV. CONCLUSION 23 For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Upper Deck’s renewed motion to seal (ECF No. 114), in accordance with Appendix A. If Upper Deck or Pixels wishes to file a renewed motion to seal for the denied requests, they may do so no later than December 23, 2025, after the issuance of this order. To the extent either Party wishes to renew its motion to seal for any document or portion thereof, that 1 Order listing: the title of the document, the ECF number of the public document, the || ECF number of the lodgment, the page and line number(s) or the section or paragraph ||numbers of the proposed redactions (or stating that the party wishes to seal the entirety of ||the document), and the compelling reason for sealing each proposed redaction or 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 ||Regarding Exhibit Attachment” revised versions of these documents with only those |/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 || 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 |}accompanying ECF No. 115.

17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 ~ || DATED: December 9, 2025 (yatta Bahar □□ 0 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court —417_ 1 APPENDIX A 2 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) Exhibit 7 to GRANTED IN PART. the Pixels' The Court has reasoned Motions to that terms of licensing Seal (ECF agreement related to the Nos. 75 and development of Upper 78) -- Upper Deck’s products can be Deck and redacted, supra §§ Jump 23, III.B.4.ii.b-d. The Court, Inc.’s thus, agrees to redact all executed words in the proposed Endorsement provisions, except for first Agreement two words of § 2(A)(i) and 12 first five words of § 2(A)(ii) of the licensing agreement quoted here. It 14 is clear from the public record that Upper Deck has This should remain licensed intellectual 16 confidential as it is property assets to create trade secret data trading cards and 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 §§ competitors and 2(A)(i)-(ii) would not be 20 unscrupulous actors narrowly tailored to to exploit new protect necessary technologies and information. See 22 attempt to circumvent Kamakana, 447 F.3d at § 2 (A) the scope 1183 This should remain GRANTED, since this 24 confidential as it is provision entirely relates trade secret data to the product related to the scope of development process 26 the license. Public through which Upper Deck exposure could allow collaborates with its competitors and licensors. See In re 28 § 2(B) unscrupulous actors Hydroxycut Mktg. & Sales 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 to exploit new Practices Litig., 2011 WL technologies and 864897, *2. attempt to circumvent 5 the scope.

This should remain GRANTED, since 8 confidential as it is proposed redaction trade secret data entirely relates to the related to the scope of product development 10 the license. Public process through which exposure could allow Upper Deck collaborates 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.

DENIED WITHOUT 16 PREJUDICE, since it is clear on the public record that Upper Deck has the 18 This should remain “exclusive right to use confidential as it is Jordan’s rights, including trade secret data his marks described above, 20 related to the scope of on memorabilia, the license. Public photographs, collectibles, exposure could allow and other products.” (ECF 22 competitors and No. 24 ¶ 48.) Information unscrupulous actors already available to the to exploit new public cannot meet the 24 technologies and compelling reasons attempt to circumvent standard. Kamakana, 447 § 2(C) the scope. F.3d at 1184.

26 Trade secret – GRANTED, supra § number of samples III.B.4.ii.b. for review and 28 § 4(B) approval 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 GRANTED, supra § Trade secret – III.B.4.ii.c.

§ 5(a) number of signatures 5 Trade secret – types GRANTED, supra § of signature III.B.4.ii.c.

§ 5(b) alternatives 7 Trade secret – GRANTED, supra § Minimum III.B.4.ii.a.

§ 6 compensation 9 Trade Secret – GRANTED, supra § § 7(A) royalty rate III.B.4.ii.a.

GRANTED, since 11 proposed redaction entirely relates to the product development 13 This should remain process through which confidential as it is Upper Deck collaborates 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 to exploit new otherwise publicly 19 technologies and available in this action’s attempt to circumvent record. Kamakana, 447 § 8(C) the scope. F.3d at 1184.

21 DENIED WITHOUT Trade secret – length PREJUDICE, supra § § 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.

DENIED WITHOUT 25 Trade secret – length PREJUDICE, supra § § 24(a) of term of agreement III.B.4.ii.f.

DENIED WITHOUT 27 UpperDeck PREJUDICE, supra § 270 Jordan signature III.B.4.iv.

1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 DENIED WITHOUT UpperDeck PREJUDICE, supra § 271 Jordan signature III.B.4.iv.

5 Jordan signature and DENIED WITHOUT UpperDeck length of term for PREJUDICE, supra §§ 272 agreement III.B.4.ii.f, III.B.4.iv.

7 DENIED WITHOUT UpperDeck PREJUDICE, supra § 273 Jordan signature III.B.4.iv.

9 DENIED WITHOUT UpperDeck PREJUDICE, supra § 274 Jordan signature III.B.4.iv.

11 Exhibit 10 to GRANTED, supra § Pixels’ UpperDeck III.B.4.i.

Motions to 301, Trade secret – gross Seal (ECF § 1.1 revenue amount Nos. 75 and Trade secret and GRANTED, supra § 78) -- UpperDeck privacy – names of III.B.4.ii.e.

15 Brevettar and 306, § 1 third parties Upper Deck Privacy - Lease terms DENIED WITHOUT Business for rent, security PREJUDICE, supra § Alliance UpperDeck deposit and length of III.B.4.iii.

Agreement 314 term DENIED WITHOUT 19 UpperDeck Privacy - Lease terms PREJUDICE, supra § 332 for rent III.B.4.iii.

Privacy – Tenant DENIED WITHOUT 21 UpperDeck improvement PREJUDICE, supra § 335 allowance III.B.4.iii.

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.

340 term Exhibit 20 to DENIED WITHOUT Pixels’ PREJUDICE, supra § Motion to UpperDeck Trade Secret – date of III.B.4.ii.f.

27 66 agreement 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) Seal (ECF Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT No. 78) -- UpperDeck privacy – names of PREJUDICE, supra §§ 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 § Brevettar and 67, § A.6 third parties III.B.4.ii.e.

7 Trends DENIED WITHOUT International, UpperDeck Trade secret – Length PREJUDICE, supra § LLC 67, § D of contract term III.B.4.ii.f.

9 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT UpperDeck privacy – Royalty PREJUDICE, supra § 67, § E information III.B.4.ii.a.

11 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 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 § 88 agreement III.B.4.ii.f.

24 Exhibit 98 to Trade secret and GRANTED, supra § Pixels' privacy – damage III.B.4.ii.a.

Motion to § 1.1, #3.3 calculations Seal (ECF Pixels sales data and GRANTED IN PART, No. 78) ¶ 9 damage calculation supra § III.B.4.i.

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. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 Pixels sales data and GRANTED, supra § damage calculation III.B.4.i.

¶¶ 14–16 and royalty rates 5 Trade secret and GRANTED, supra §§ privacy – third party III.B.4.i, III.B.4.ii.e. names, royalty rates 7 and minimum ¶ 16 guarantee Trade secret and GRANTED, supra §§ 9 privacy – royalty III.B.4.i, III.B.4.ii.e. rates and damage calculations and 11 ¶¶ 19-20 Pixels sales data GRANTED IN PART.

The Court has reasoned 13 that terms of licensing agreement related to the development of Upper 15 Deck’s products can be redacted, supra §§ III.B.4.ii.b-d. The Court, 17 thus, agrees to redact all words in the proposed provisions, except for first 19 two words of § 2(A)(i) and first five words of § 2(A)(ii) of the licensing 21 agreement quoted here. It is clear from the public record that Upper Deck has 23 licensed intellectual property assets to create trading cards and 25 memorabilia. (See e.g., ECF No. 24 ¶ 2.) As such, redacting the entirety of §§ 27 Trade secret – length 2(A)(i)-(ii) would not be ¶ 22 and scope of license narrowly tailored to 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 protect necessary information. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 5 1183.

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE redaction of 7 date of licensing agreement, supra § Trade secret – length III.B.4.ii.f; GRANTED 9 and scope of license redaction of damage and damage calculation, supra § ¶ 24 calculation III.B.4.ii.g.

11 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE redaction of Trade secret and third party names, supra § 13 privacy – third party III.B.4.ii.e; GRANTED names, royalty rates redaction of royalty rates and minimum and minimum guarantee, 15 ¶ 25 guarantee supra § III.B.4.ii.a.

DENIED WITHOUT Trade secret and PREJUDICE redaction of 17 privacy – third party third party names, supra § names, royalty rates III.B.4.ii.e; GRANTED and minimum redaction of royalty rates, 19 ¶ 27 guarantee supra § III.B.4.ii.a.

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE redaction of 21 Trade secret and third party names, supra § privacy – third party III.B.4.ii.e; GRANTED names, royalty rates redaction of royalty rates, 23 and minimum minimum guarantee, and guarantee and damage calculation, supra ¶¶ 29, 31 damage calculation § III.B.4.ii.a.

25 Trade secret and GRANTED redaction of privacy – royalty royalty rates and damage rates and damage calculation, supra § 27 ¶ 33 calculation III.B.4.ii.a.

1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 GRANTED redaction of Trade secret and royalty rates and damage privacy – damage calculation, supra § 5 p. 14 calculation III.B.4.ii.a.

Trade secret and GRANTED redaction of privacy – Pixels sales Pixels sales data and 7 data and damage damage calculation, supra p. 16 calculation § III.B.4.ii.a.

Trade secret and GRANTED redaction of 9 privacy – Pixels sales Pixels sales data and data and damage damage calculation, supra Schedule R1 calculation § III.B.4.ii.a.

11 Exhibit 94 to GRANTED redaction of Pixels’ Trade secret – damage assessment, supra 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 § ¶ 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. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 licensed intellectual property assets to create trading cards and 5 memorabilia. (See e.g., ECF No. 24 ¶ 2.) As such, redacting the entirety of §§ 7 2(A)(i)-(ii) would not be narrowly tailored to protect necessary 9 information. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183.

11 GRANTED, since proposed redaction entirely relates to the 13 product development This should remain process through which 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 the license. Public Practices Litig., 2011 WL 17 exposure could allow 864897, *2. Further, the competitors and information in the unscrupulous actors proposed redaction is not 19 to exploit new otherwise publicly technologies and available in this action’s attempt to circumvent record. Kamakana, 447 21 ¶ 38 the scope F.3d at 1184.

Trade secret and GRANTED, supra § privacy – personal III.B.4.ii.c-d.

23 requirements and alternatives to ¶ 41 signatures 25 Trade secret and GRANTED for redaction privacy – of compensation and compensation, royalty rate, supra § 27 royalty rate, and III.B.4.ii.a; DENIED for ¶¶ 42–44 length of agreement redaction of length of 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 agreement, supra § III.B.4.ii.f.

5 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, supra § III.B.4.ii.f.

Trade secret and privacy –length of 8 ¶¶ 47-49 agreement Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT privacy –length of PREJUDICE, supra §§ 10 agreement, third III.B.4.ii.e, III.B.4.ii.f ¶ 50 party names DENIED WITHOUT 12 Trade secret – PREJUDICE, supra § ¶ 51 number of samples III.B.4.ii.b DENIED WITHOUT 14 PREJUDICE for length Trade secret and of agreement and third privacy –length of party names, supra §§ 16 agreement, third III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED party names and for royalty rates, supra § ¶ 53 royalty rates III.B.4.ii.a.

18 Trade secret and GRANTED, supra § privacy –minimum III.B.4.ii.a. guarantee and 20 ¶ 54 payment schedule Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT privacy – third party PREJUDICE, supra § 22 ¶ 55 names III.B.4.ii.e.

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for length 24 Trade secret and of agreement and third privacy –length of party names, supra §§ 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.

Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 28 ¶¶ 60–62 privacy –length of PREJUDICE for length 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 agreement, third of agreement and third party names party names, supra §§ III.B.4.ii.e-f.

5 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for length Trade secret and of agreement and third 7 privacy –length of party names, supra §§ agreement, third III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED party names and for minimum guarantee 9 minimum guarantee values and royalty rates, ¶¶ 63–64 and royalty rates supra § III.B.4.ii.a.

DENIED for length of 11 Trade secret and agreement and third party privacy –length of names, supra §§ agreement, third III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED 13 party names and for minimum guarantee minimum guarantee values and royalty rates, ¶¶ 65–66 and royalty rates supra § III.B.4.ii.a.

15 DENIED WITHOUT Trade secret and PREJUDICE for third privacy – third party party names, supra § 17 ¶¶ 67–68 names III.B.4.ii.e.

DENIED WITHOUT Trade secret and PREJUDICE for third 19 privacy – third party party names, supra § ¶¶ 69–70 names III.B.4.ii.e.

DENIED WITHOUT 21 PREJUDICE for length Trade secret and of agreement and third privacy – third party party names, supra §§ 23 names, length of the III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED agreement, royalty for minimum guarantee 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. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for length 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 agreement, royalty for minimum guarantee 7 rates and minimum values and royalty rates, ¶¶ 76–77 guarantee supra § III.B.4.ii.a.

DENIED WITHOUT 9 PREJUDICE for length Trade secret and of agreement and third privacy – third party party names, supra §§ 11 names, length of the III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED agreement, royalty for minimum guarantee rates and minimum values and royalty rates, 13 ¶¶ 78–79 guarantee supra § III.B.4.ii.a.

DENIED WITHOUT Trade secret and PREJUDICE for third 15 privacy – third party party names, supra § ¶¶ 79–80 names III.B.4.ii.e DENIED WITHOUT 17 PREJUDICE for length Trade secret and of agreement and third privacy – third party party names, supra §§ 19 names, length of the III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED agreement, royalty for minimum guarantee 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 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, ¶¶ 82–83 guarantee supra § III.B.4.ii.a.

1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for length 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 agreement, royalty for minimum guarantee 7 rates and minimum values and royalty rates, ¶ 84 guarantee supra § III.B.4.ii.a.

GRANTED, the Court 9 finds that confidential settlement information is “traditionally kept secret” 11 for which there are “compelling reasons” to keep such information 13 under seal. See e.g., Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Mayorkas, No. 15 Trade secret and 317CV02366BASKSC, privacy – 2021 WL 666861, at *2 Confidential (S.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2021) 17 settlement of (citing Kamakana, 447 ¶ 86 litigation F.3d at 1178).

DENIED WITHOUT 19 PREJUDICE for length Trade secret and of agreement and third privacy – third party party names, supra §§ 21 names, length of the III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED agreement, royalty for minimum guarantee rates and minimum values and royalty rates, 23 ¶¶ 93–95 guarantee supra § III.B.4.ii.a.

Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT privacy – third party PREJUDICE, supra §§ 25 names, length of the III.B.4.ii.e-f agreement, scope of ¶¶ 97–99 license 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for third party names and length of 5 agreement supra §§ III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED Trade secret and for partner attributes, since 7 privacy – third party redacted portions relate to names, length of the Upper Deck and its agreement, scope of licensors’ proprietary 9 license and partner business strategies, supra ¶¶ 99–102 attributes §§ III.B.4.ii.b-d.

GRANTED, since 11 redacted portions relate to Trade secret and Upper Deck and its privacy – scope of licensors’ proprietary 13 license and partner business strategies, supra ¶ 103 attributes §§ III.B.4.ii.b-d.

Trade secret – Pixels GRANTED, supra § 15 ¶ 107 sales data spreadsheet III.B.4.i.

Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT privacy – scope of PREJUDICE, supra § 17 license and third III.B.4.ii.e.

¶ 110 party names Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 19 privacy – scope of PREJUDICE, supra § license and third III.B.4.ii.e. 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 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for third 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 agreement, royalty for royalty rates, minimum 7 rates and minimum guarantee values and guarantee and damages calculations, ¶¶ 119–120 damage calculations supra § III.B.4.ii.a.

9 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for third party names and length of 11 agreement, supra § III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED for royalty rates, minimum 13 guarantee values and damages calculations, supra § III.B.4.ii.a; 15 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for 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 agreement, royalty (“[T]he mere statement 19 rates and minimum that something is a trade guarantee and secret falls far short of damage calculations what the Court needs to 21 and business trade find that [movant] has met ¶¶ 121–122 secrets its burden of proof. . .”).

DENIED WITHOUT 23 PREJUDICE, for third Trade secret and party names and length of privacy – third party agreement, supra § 25 names, length of the III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED agreement, royalty for royalty rates, minimum rates and minimum guarantee values and 27 guarantee and damages calculations, ¶¶ 124–127 damage calculations supra § III.B.4.ii.a 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 Trade secret and GRANTED, supra § privacy – damage III.B.4.ii.a ¶ 127 calculations 5 Trade secret and GRANTED, supra § privacy – damage III.B.4.ii.a calculations and 7 Pixels sales data ¶¶ 132–133 spreadsheet Privacy – third parties DENIED WITHOUT 9 p. 81 – List of and expert witness PREJUDICE, supra § interviewees information III.B.4.ii.e.

DENIED WITHOUT 11 Schedule 1 Trade secret and PREJUDICE for third (Table of privacy – third party party names, length of 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; DENIED WITHOUT 15 PREJUDICE for third party names and length of 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 and Royalties license and royalty guarantee values and 19 –Trends and payment damages calculations, International) information supra § III.B.4.ii.a.

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. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 Schedule 3.2 GRANTED, supra § (Pixels Sales Trade secret and III.B.4.ii.a – Sales by privacy – Pixels sales 5 Artist Name) data Schedule 3.3 GRANTED, supra § (Pixels Sales III.B.4.ii.a 7 – Sales by Trade secret and Artwork privacy – Pixels sales Name) data 9 Schedule 3.4 GRANTED, supra § (Pixels Sales III.B.4.ii.a – List of Trade secret and 11 Images by privacy – Pixels sales Artist) data Email chain GRANTED, since sealed 13 between exhibits relate to Upper Upper Deck and its licensors’ Deck’s proprietary business 15 president and negotiations, supra §§ Jump 23, Inc. III.B.4.ii.b-d.

The scope of 17 the Jordan license and enforcement 19 of the license are being The scope of the discussed by Jordan license and 21 upper enforcement of the management license are being in a trade discussed by upper 23 secret management in a discussion, trade secret which would discussion, which Exhibit 105 be would be to Pixels’ advantageous advantageous for Motion to for competitors and Seal (ECF competitors unscrupulous actors No. 78) and to know.

1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 unscrupulous actors to know.

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 Upper Plaintiff contains Defendant’s Deck’s seeks to sales data. (ECF No. Motion to redact 83-4.) The Court Seal (ECF Exhibit 9 finds that protecting No. 102) attached to this sales data 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 Plaintiff’s presents a compelling Motion for reason to seal.

Summary 5 Adjudication. (ECF No. 81.)

7 Defendant responds in support, 9 noting that this document 11 contains confidential sales and 13 contributor information. (See ECF No. 15 87-1 at ¶5.)

Exhibit 9 clearly 17 contains Defendant’s sales data.

19 (ECF No. 83- 4.) The Court finds that 21 protecting this sales data presents a 23 compelling reason to seal.

25 Exhibit M to Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT Upper privacy – date of PREJUDICE for date of Deck’s agreement and agreement, supra § Motion to ¶ 17 and alternatives to III.B.4.ii.f footnote 23 signatures 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) Seal (ECF Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT No. 102) privacy – third party PREJUDICE, supra § ¶ 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.

Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 15 privacy – pixels sales PREJUDICE, supra § data and damage III.B.4.i.

¶¶ 34–35 calculations 17 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT privacy – pixels sales PREJUDICE, supra § data and damage III.B.4.i 19 ¶¶ 42–43 calculations Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT privacy – third party PREJUDICE, supra § 21 names and length of III.B.4.ii.e-f ¶ 47 agreement DENIED WITHOUT 23 PREJUDICE, for third Trade secret and party names and length of privacy – third party agreement, supra § 25 names and length of III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED agreement and for royalty rates, minimum minimum guarantee guarantee values, supra § 27 ¶¶ 48–50 and royalty rates III.B.4.ii.a 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for third 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 agreement and for royalty rates, minimum 7 minimum guarantee guarantee values, supra § ¶¶ 50–53 and royalty rates III.B.4.ii.a Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 9 privacy – third party PREJUDICE, supra § names and length of III.B.4.ii.e-f ¶¶ 54–55 agreement 11 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for third party names and length of 13 Trade secret and agreement, supra § privacy – third party III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED names and length of for royalty rates, minimum 15 agreement and guarantee values and minimum guarantee damages calculations, ¶¶ 56–57 and royalty rates supra § III.B.4.ii.a 17 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for third 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 agreement and for royalty rates, minimum 21 minimum guarantee guarantee values, supra § ¶¶ 57–59 and royalty rates III.B.4.ii.a DENIED WITHOUT 23 PREJUDICE, for third Trade secret and party names and length of privacy – third party agreement, supra § 25 names and length of III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED agreement and for royalty rates, minimum minimum guarantee guarantee values, supra § 27 ¶¶ 60–62 and royalty rates III.B.4.ii.a 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for third 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 agreement and for royalty rates, minimum 7 minimum guarantee guarantee values, supra § ¶¶ 62–64 and royalty rates III.B.4.ii.a Trade secret and GRANTED, supra § 9 privacy – damage III.B.4.ii.a ¶ 64 calculation Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 11 privacy – third party PREJUDICE, supra § ¶ 65 names III.B.4.ii.e Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 13 privacy – third party PREJUDICE, supra § names and length of III.B.4.ii.e-f ¶¶ 66–67 agreement 15 DENIED WITHOUT 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 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 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT privacy – third party PREJUDICE, supra § ¶¶ 71–72 names III.B.4.ii.e 5 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for third 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 agreement and for royalty rates, minimum 9 minimum guarantee guarantee values, supra § ¶¶ 72–74 and royalty rates III.B.4.ii.a Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT 11 privacy – third party PREJUDICE, supra § ¶ 75 names III.B.4.ii.e DENIED WITHOUT 13 Trade secret and PREJUDICE, for third privacy – third party party names; and scope names and length of and length of agreement, 15 agreement and supra § III.B.4.ii.e-f; personal GRANTED for personal ¶ 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 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 § ¶¶ 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 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT privacy –length of PREJUDICE, supra § ¶ 81 agreement III.B.4.ii.f 5 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for third party names, supra § 7 Trade secret and III.B.4.ii.e; GRANTED privacy – third party for royalty rates, supra § ¶ 82 names, royalty rates III.B.4.ii.a.

9 Trade secret and DENIED WITHOUT privacy –length of PREJUDICE, supra § ¶ 89 agreement III.B.4.ii.f 11 Trade secret sales GRANTED, supra § ¶ 89 data from Pixels III.B.4.ii.a.

DENIED WITHOUT 13 PREJUDICE, for third 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, 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 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. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 and royalty rates and damage calculations 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 Sales data and GRANTED, supra § 9 Exhibit 5.1 damage calculations III.B.4.i Sales data and GRANTED, supra § Exhibit 5.2 damage calculations III.B.4.i 11 Sales data and GRANTED, supra § Exhibit 6.1 damage calculations III.B.4.i Sales data and GRANTED, supra § 13 Exhibit 6.2 damage calculations III.B.4.i Sales data and GRANTED, supra § Exhibit 7.1 damage calculations III.B.4.i 15 Sales data and GRANTED, supra § Exhibit 7.2 damage calculations III.B.4.i DENIED WITHOUT 17 PREJUDICE, for third party names, supra § III.B.4.ii.e; GRANTED 19 for sales data, supra § Third party names III.B.4.i, and royalty and sales data and amounts, supra § 21 Exhibit 9 royalty amounts III.B.4.ii.a DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for third 23 party names, supra § III.B.4.ii.e; GRANTED for sales data, supra § 25 Third party names III.B.4.i, and royalty and sales data and amounts, supra § Exhibit 10 royalty amounts III.B.4.ii.a 1 Upper Deck's Court’s Ruling Reasoning (ECF No. Exhibit Pin Cite 114) 3 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for third party names and length of 5 Trade secret and agreement, supra § privacy – third party III.B.4.ii.e-f; GRANTED names and length of for sales data, supra § 7 agreement and III.B.4.i, and royalty minimum guarantee amounts, supra § 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