The National Collegiate Athletic Association is seeking to seal a declaration from NCAA employee Dan Gavitt that contains what the organization describes as 'highly sensitive financial and commercial information related to the NCAA's revenues, advertising expenditures, viewerships, and valuations, as well as confidential and commercially sensitive commercial information from nonparties to this lawsuit.' DraftKings did not oppose the sealing motion, leaving the court to scrutinize the NCAA's justification on its own.
Judge Garcia rejected the NCAA's initial attempt to seal the document, finding the organization failed to meet the legal standard for keeping court records from public view. As the judge wrote, 'Missing from Plaintiff's brief, however, is an explanation of how the disclosure of Mr. Gavitt's declaration would cause harm and why that harm warrants secrecy.' The court emphasized that under Seventh Circuit precedent, 'it is not enough to simply assert that disclosure would place a party at a competitive disadvantage.'
The judge delivered particularly pointed criticism of the NCAA's approach, noting that the organization's 'boilerplate assertion that the exhibits contain commercially sensitive information' was 'unconvincing.' Garcia cited recent precedent from within his own district, where another judge rejected similar generic claims about competitive harm without specific explanations of how disclosure would cause damage.
The sealing dispute arose in the broader context of the NCAA's lawsuit against the daily fantasy sports giant, though the specific claims in the underlying litigation were not detailed in Tuesday's order. The case appears to involve issues touching on the NCAA's core revenue streams, including advertising and media rights valuations that the organization considers competitively sensitive.
Judge Garcia gave the NCAA a narrow window to cure the deficiency in its sealing motion, directing the organization to 'submit supplemental briefing within five days of this Order that addresses the harm that would occur should Mr. Gavitt's declaration become public, as well as justifications for sealing his declaration.' The court's demand for specificity reflects broader judicial skepticism toward blanket confidentiality claims in civil litigation.
The ruling aligns with a growing trend in federal courts requiring parties to provide detailed justifications for sealing documents rather than relying on conclusory assertions about competitive harm. As Judge Garcia noted, citing Seventh Circuit authority, parties seeking secrecy 'must explain how disclosure would cause harm and why the harm predicted warrants secrecy,' setting a substantive bar beyond mere claims of commercial sensitivity.
The NCAA now faces a tight deadline to provide the specific harm analysis that was missing from its initial motion. If the organization fails to adequately justify the sealing request, Gavitt's declaration—potentially containing detailed financial information about one of college sports' most powerful organizations—could become part of the public record in the high-stakes litigation with DraftKings.