The Upper Deck Company v. Pixels.com, LLC et al

- 1 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
THE UPPER DECK COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
PIXELS.COM, LLC,
Defendant.
Case No. 24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO SEAL (ECF No. 114)
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.
I. 	BACKGROUND
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.
(Id. ¶¶19–24.) Furthermore, Pixels’ products also allegedly misappropriated Upper Deck’s
own trademarks—including Upper Deck’s logo. (Id. ¶ 11.)
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 43

- 2 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
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.)
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.
(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:
1. An executed licensing agreement between Upper Deck and Jump 23 regarding
Upper Deck’s rights to use Michael Jordan’s intellectual property in its products
(ECF Nos. 75 and 78, Ex. 7);
2. An executed agreement between Upper Deck and Brevettar, LLC for Brevettar, LLC
to sublicense Upper Deck’s rights to use Michael Jordan’s intellectual property (ECF
Nos. 75, 78, Ex. 10);
3. An executed agreement between Brevettar, LLC and Trends International, LLC for
Trends International, LLC to sublicense Brevettar, LLC’s rights to use Michael
Jordan’s intellectual property (ECF No. 78, Ex. 20);
4. An expert report by Upper Deck’s expert, Christian Tregillis (ECF No. 78, Ex. 94);
5. An expert rebuttal report by Christian Tregillis (ECF No. 78, Ex. 98);
6. An email between Jump 23 and Upper Deck management attached to Pixels’ motion
to seal (ECF No. 75, Ex. 105); and
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 43

- 3 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. An expert report by Pixels’ expert, Lindsey Fisher (ECF No. 102, Ex. M).
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.
(ECF No. 114.)
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
“[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.”
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
1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).
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.
“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
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 43

- 4 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.
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.
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).
III. 	ANALYSIS
A. 	Whether Upper Deck Corrected Procedural Deficiencies Identified in
ECF No. 110
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 43

- 5 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. 	Requirement for Parties to Confer and Submit Responses to
Support Relevant Motions to Seal
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.
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.”
(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.
2. 	Requirement to Publicly File Copies of Documents with Proposed
Redactions
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
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 43

- 6 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(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.
B. 	Whether Upper Deck Presents Compelling Reasons for its Proposed
Redactions
1. 	Related Documents More Than Tangentially Related to Merits
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.
2. 	“Compelling Reasons” Legal Standard
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).
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
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 43

- 7 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
Cal.App.4th 1443, 1455-56, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 277 (2002).
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
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
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”).
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
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
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 7 of 43

- 8 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.").
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
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
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.”).
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.”
Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006).
3. 	“Narrowly Tailored” Legal Standard
“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.
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 8 of 43

- 9 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.
4. 	Analysis of Compelling Reasons
i. 	Financial Data (e.g., Gross Revenue Amount, and Sales Data)
and Damages Calculation
“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.
(ECF No. 110 at 10:21–11:20.)
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.)
ii. 	Licensing Agreement Terms
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
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 9 of 43

- 10 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.”).
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).
a. 	Royalty 	Rate, 	Minimum 	Guarantee, 	and
Compensation Clauses
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)).
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 10 of 43

- 11 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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. . .
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.
b. 	Sample Review and Approval
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.
c. 	Signature-Related Terms
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
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 11 of 43

- 12 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
documents containing information revealing business and marketing strategy and product
development). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS sealing signature-related terms.
d. 	Personal Services Rendered by Michael Jordan
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.
e. 	Third-Party Information (e.g., Names)
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
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”).
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
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 12 of 43

- 13 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.
f. 	Sublicenses, Dates, Term Lengths of Agreements
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).
“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.
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.
g. 	Damages-Related Licensing Terms (e.g., Related to
Violation)
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 13 of 43

- 14 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Upper Deck has failed to provide particularized justification for why licensing
provisions relating to damages constitute either trade secrets or confidential information.
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.”).
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.
iii. 	Lease Agreement Terms
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.
Thus, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Upper Deck’s proposed redactions
to seal lease terms.
iv. 	Jordan Signature
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 14 of 43

- 15 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Upper Deck also moves to redact Jordan’s signature from ECF Nos. 75, 78, Ex. 7.
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.
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.
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.
v. 	Exhibit 105
“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.
* * *
In sum, the Court broadly rules on Upper Deck’s motion to seal as follows:
Order
Section
Type of Information 	Court’s Ruling
III.B.4.i 	Financial 	Data 	(e.g., 	Gross 	Revenue 	and
Sales Data) and Damages Calculation
GRANTED
III.B.4.ii.a 	Royalty 	Rate, 	Minimum 	Guarantee, 	and
Compensation 	Clauses 	in 	Licensing
Agreements
GRANTED
III.B.4.ii.b 	Sample Review & Approval Provisions in
Licensing Agreements
GRANTED
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 15 of 43

- 16 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order
Section
Type of Information 	Court’s Ruling
III.B.4.ii.c 	Signature-Related 	Terms 	in 	in 	Licensing
Agreements
GRANTED
III.B.4.ii.d 	Terms 	Regarding 	Personal 	Services
Rendered by Michael Jordan in Licensing
Agreements
GRANTED
III.B.4.ii.e 	Third-Party 	Information 	(e.g., 	Names) 	in
Licensing Agreements
DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
III.B.4.ii.f 	Sublicenses, 	Dates, 	Term 	Lengths 	of
Licensing Agreements
DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
III.B.4.ii.g 	Damages-Related Licensing Terms 	DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
III.B.4.iii. 	Lease Agreement Terms 	DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
III.B.4.iv. 	Jordan’s Signature 	DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
III.B.4.v. 	Exhibit 105 to Pixels’ Motion to Seal (ECF
No. 78)
DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
The Court includes Appendix A, providing an individual ruling on each of Upper
Deck’s proposed redactions.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
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
party is ORDERED to append to its briefing a table similar to that in the Appendices to
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 16 of 43

- 17 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
this 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.
Otherwise, Upper Deck and Pixels are instructed to file the unredacted versions of
the aforementioned documents as directed by the Court in this Order on the public docket
no 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,
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
Case Filing Administrative Policies & Procedures Manual. 	Non-compliance with this
order or any relevant rules may result in sanctions pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.1.
Further, the Clerk of Court shall ACCEPT and FILE UNDER SEAL any documents
accompanying ECF No. 115.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 9, 2025
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 17 of 43

- 18 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPENDIX A
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
Exhibit 7 to
the 	Pixels'
Motions 	to
Seal 	(ECF
Nos. 75 and
78) -- Upper
Deck 	and
Jump 	23,
Inc.’s
executed
Endorsement
Agreement
§ 2 (A)
This 	should 	remain
confidential 	as 	it 	is
trade 	secret 	data
related to the scope of
the 	license. 	Public
exposure could allow
competitors 	and
unscrupulous 	actors
to 	exploit 	new
technologies 	and
attempt to circumvent
the scope
GRANTED 	IN 	PART.
The 	Court 	has 	reasoned
that 	terms 	of 	licensing
agreement 	related 	to 	the
development 	of 	Upper
Deck’s 	products 	can 	be
redacted, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.b-d. 	The Court,
thus, agrees to redact all
words 	in 	the 	proposed
provisions, except for first
two words of § 2(A)(i) and
first 	five 	words 	of 	§
2(A)(ii) 	of 	the 	licensing
agreement quoted here. 	It
is 	clear 	from 	the 	public
record that Upper Deck has
licensed 	intellectual
property 	assets 	to 	create
trading 	cards 	and
memorabilia. 	(See 	e.g.,
ECF No. 24 ¶ 2.) As such,
redacting the entirety of §§
2(A)(i)-(ii) would not be
narrowly 	tailored 	to
protect 	necessary
information. 	See
Kamakana, 	447 	F.3d 	at
1183
§ 2(B)
This 	should 	remain
confidential 	as 	it 	is
trade 	secret 	data
related to the scope of
the 	license. 	Public
exposure could allow
competitors 	and
unscrupulous 	actors
GRANTED, 	since 	this
provision 	entirely 	relates
to 	the 	product
development 	process
through which Upper Deck
collaborates 	with 	its
licensors. 	See 	In 	re
Hydroxycut Mktg. & Sales
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 18 of 43

- 19 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
to 	exploit 	new
technologies 	and
attempt to circumvent
the scope.
Practices Litig., 2011 WL
864897, *2.
Footnote 1
This 	should 	remain
confidential 	as 	it 	is
trade 	secret 	data
related to the scope of
the 	license. 	Public
exposure could allow
competitors 	and
unscrupulous 	actors
to 	exploit 	new
technologies 	and
attempt to circumvent
the scope.
GRANTED, 	since
proposed 	redaction
entirely 	relates 	to 	the
product 	development
process 	through 	which
Upper 	Deck 	collaborates
with its licensors. See In re
Hydroxycut Mktg. & Sales
Practices Litig., 2011 WL
864897, *2.
§ 2(C)
This 	should 	remain
confidential 	as 	it 	is
trade 	secret 	data
related to the scope of
the 	license. 	Public
exposure could allow
competitors 	and
unscrupulous 	actors
to 	exploit 	new
technologies 	and
attempt to circumvent
the scope.
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, since it is
clear on the public record
that Upper Deck has the
“exclusive 	right 	to 	use
Jordan’s rights, including
his marks described above,
on 	memorabilia,
photographs, 	collectibles,
and other products.” (ECF
No. 24 ¶ 48.) Information
already 	available 	to 	the
public 	cannot 	meet 	the
compelling 	reasons
standard. 	Kamakana, 447
F.3d at 1184.
§ 4(B)
Trade 	secret 	–
number 	of 	samples
for 	review 	and
approval
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.b.
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 19 of 43

- 20 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
§ 5(a)
Trade 	secret 	–
number of signatures
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.c.
§ 5(b)
Trade secret – types
of 	signature
alternatives
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.c.
§ 6
Trade 	secret 	–
Minimum
compensation
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a.
§ 7(A)
Trade 	Secret 	–
royalty rate
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a.
§ 8(C)
This 	should 	remain
confidential 	as 	it 	is
trade 	secret 	data
related to the scope of
the 	license. 	Public
exposure could allow
competitors 	and
unscrupulous 	actors
to 	exploit 	new
technologies 	and
attempt to circumvent
the scope.
GRANTED, 	since
proposed 	redaction
entirely 	relates 	to 	the
product 	development
process 	through 	which
Upper 	Deck 	collaborates
with its licensors. See In re
Hydroxycut Mktg. & Sales
Practices Litig., 2011 WL
864897, *2. 	Further, the
information 	in 	the
proposed redaction is not
otherwise 	publicly
available in this action’s
record. 	Kamakana, 	447
F.3d at 1184.
§ 13
Trade secret – length
of term for agreement
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.f.
§ 19
Trade secret – interest
rate upon breach
GRANTED, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.a, III.B.4.ii.g.
§ 24(a)
Trade secret – length
of term of agreement
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.f.
UpperDeck
270 	Jordan signature
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.iv.
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 20 of 43

- 21 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
UpperDeck
271 	Jordan signature
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.iv.
UpperDeck
272
Jordan signature and
length 	of 	term 	for
agreement
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.f, III.B.4.iv.
UpperDeck
273 	Jordan signature
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.iv.
UpperDeck
274 	Jordan signature
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.iv.
Exhibit 10 to
Pixels’
Motions 	to
Seal 	(ECF
Nos. 75 and
78) 	--
Brevettar and
Upper 	Deck
Business
Alliance
Agreement
UpperDeck
301,
§ 1.1
Trade secret – gross
revenue amount
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.i.
UpperDeck
306, § 1
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	– names 	of
third parties
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e.
UpperDeck
314
Privacy - Lease terms
for 	rent, 	security
deposit and length of
term
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.iii.
UpperDeck
332
Privacy - Lease terms
for rent
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.iii.
UpperDeck
335
Privacy 	– 	Tenant
improvement
allowance
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.iii.
UpperDeck
340
Privacy - Lease terms
for 	rent, 	security
deposit and length of
term
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.f, III.B.4.iii.
Exhibit 20 to
Pixels’
Motion 	to 	UpperDeck
66
Trade Secret – date of
agreement
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.f.
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 21 of 43

- 22 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
Seal 	(ECF
No. 	78) 	--
Licensing
Agreement
between
Brevettar and
Trends
International,
LLC
UpperDeck
66, § A.3
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	– names 	of
third parties
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.e, III.B.4.ii.f.
UpperDeck
67, § A.6
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	– names 	of
third parties
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e.
UpperDeck
67, § D
Trade secret – Length
of contract term
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.f.
UpperDeck
67, § E
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	– 	Royalty
information
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a.
UpperDeck
68, § F
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – 	Minimum
Guarantee
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a.
UpperDeck
68, § G
Trade 	secret 	–
number of samples to
be approved
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.b.
UpperDeck
68, § H
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	– 	Royalty
information 	and
guarantee payment
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a.
UpperDeck
69, § 1
Trade 	secret 	–
damages for violation
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.g.
UpperDeck
83, §§ 2, 3
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
information
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e.
UpperDeck
88
Trade secret – date of
agreement
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.f.
Exhibit 98 to
Pixels'
Motion 	to
Seal 	(ECF
No. 78)
§ 1.1, #3.3
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	– 	damage
calculations
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a.
¶ 9
Pixels sales data and
damage calculation
GRANTED 	IN 	PART,
supra § III.B.4.i.
¶¶ 11–12
Pixels sales data and
damage calculation
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.i.
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 22 of 43

- 23 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
¶¶ 14–16
Pixels sales data and
damage 	calculation
and royalty rates
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.i.
¶ 16
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names, royalty rates
and 	minimum
guarantee
GRANTED, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.i, III.B.4.ii.e.
¶¶ 19-20
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	– 	royalty
rates 	and 	damage
calculations 	and
Pixels sales data
GRANTED, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.i, III.B.4.ii.e.
¶ 22
Trade secret – length
and scope of license
GRANTED 	IN 	PART.
The 	Court 	has 	reasoned
that 	terms 	of 	licensing
agreement 	related 	to 	the
development 	of 	Upper
Deck’s 	products 	can 	be
redacted, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.b-d. 	The Court,
thus, agrees to redact all
words 	in 	the 	proposed
provisions, except for first
two words of § 2(A)(i) and
first 	five 	words 	of 	§
2(A)(ii) 	of 	the 	licensing
agreement quoted here. 	It
is 	clear 	from 	the 	public
record that Upper Deck has
licensed 	intellectual
property 	assets 	to 	create
trading 	cards 	and
memorabilia. 	(See 	e.g.,
ECF No. 24 ¶ 2.) As such,
redacting the entirety of §§
2(A)(i)-(ii) would not be
narrowly 	tailored 	to
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 23 of 43

- 24 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
protect 	necessary
information. 	See
Kamakana, 	447 	F.3d 	at
1183.
¶ 24
Trade secret – length
and scope of license
and 	damage
calculation
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE redaction of
date 	of 	licensing
agreement, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.f; 	GRANTED
redaction 	of 	damage
calculation, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.g.
¶ 25
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names, royalty rates
and 	minimum
guarantee
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE redaction of
third party names, supra §
III.B.4.ii.e; 	GRANTED
redaction of royalty rates
and 	minimum 	guarantee,
supra § III.B.4.ii.a.
¶ 27
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names, royalty rates
and 	minimum
guarantee
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE redaction of
third party names, supra §
III.B.4.ii.e; 	GRANTED
redaction of royalty rates,
supra § III.B.4.ii.a.
¶¶ 29, 31
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names, royalty rates
and 	minimum
guarantee 	and
damage calculation
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE redaction of
third party names, supra §
III.B.4.ii.e; 	GRANTED
redaction of royalty rates,
minimum 	guarantee, 	and
damage calculation, supra
§ III.B.4.ii.a.
¶ 33
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	– 	royalty
rates 	and 	damage
calculation
GRANTED 	redaction 	of
royalty rates and damage
calculation, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a.
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 24 of 43

- 25 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
p. 14
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	– 	damage
calculation
GRANTED 	redaction 	of
royalty rates and damage
calculation, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a.
p. 16
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – Pixels sales
data 	and 	damage
calculation
GRANTED 	redaction 	of
Pixels 	sales 	data 	and
damage calculation, supra
§ III.B.4.ii.a.
Schedule R1
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – Pixels sales
data 	and 	damage
calculation
GRANTED 	redaction 	of
Pixels 	sales 	data 	and
damage calculation, supra
§ III.B.4.ii.a.
Exhibit 94 to
Pixels’
Motion 	to
Seal 	(ECF
No. 78)
§ 1.1
Trade 	secret 	–
damage assessment
GRANTED 	redaction 	of
damage assessment, supra
§ III.B.4.ii.a.
¶ 26
Trade secret – Pixels
sale data
GRANTED 	redaction 	of
Pixels sales data, supra §
III.B.4.ii.a.
¶ 36
Trade 	secret 	– 	date
and 	length 	of
agreement
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.f.
¶ 37
This 	should 	remain
confidential 	as 	it 	is
trade 	secret 	data
related to the scope of
the 	license. 	Public
exposure could allow
competitors 	and
unscrupulous 	actors
to 	exploit 	new
technologies 	and
attempt to circumvent
the scope
GRANTED 	IN 	PART.
The 	Court 	has 	reasoned
that 	terms 	of 	licensing
agreement 	related 	to 	the
development 	of 	Upper
Deck’s 	products 	can 	be
redacted, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.b-d. 	The Court,
thus, agrees to redact all
words 	in 	the 	proposed
provisions, except for first
two words of § 2(A)(i) and
first 	five 	words 	of 	§
2(A)(ii) 	of 	the 	licensing
agreement quoted here. 	It
is 	clear 	from 	the 	public
record that Upper Deck has
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 25 of 43

- 26 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
licensed 	intellectual
property 	assets 	to 	create
trading 	cards 	and
memorabilia. 	(See 	e.g.,
ECF No. 24 ¶ 2.) As such,
redacting the entirety of §§
2(A)(i)-(ii) would not be
narrowly 	tailored 	to
protect 	necessary
information. 	See
Kamakana, 	447 	F.3d 	at
1183.
¶ 38
This 	should 	remain
confidential 	as 	it 	is
trade 	secret 	data
related to the scope of
the 	license. 	Public
exposure could allow
competitors 	and
unscrupulous 	actors
to 	exploit 	new
technologies 	and
attempt to circumvent
the scope
GRANTED, 	since
proposed 	redaction
entirely 	relates 	to 	the
product 	development
process 	through 	which
Upper 	Deck 	collaborates
with its licensors. See In re
Hydroxycut Mktg. & Sales
Practices Litig., 2011 WL
864897, *2. 	Further, the
information 	in 	the
proposed redaction is not
otherwise 	publicly
available in this action’s
record. 	Kamakana, 	447
F.3d at 1184.
¶ 41
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	– 	personal
requirements 	and
alternatives 	to
signatures
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.c-d.
¶¶ 42–44
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	–
compensation,
royalty 	rate, 	and
length of agreement
GRANTED for redaction
of 	compensation 	and
royalty 	rate, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a; 	DENIED 	for
redaction 	of 	length 	of
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 26 of 43

- 27 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
agreement, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.f.
¶¶ 47-49
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	–length 	of
agreement
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.f.
¶ 50
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	–length 	of
agreement, 	third
party names
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.e, III.B.4.ii.f
¶ 51
Trade 	secret 	–
number of samples
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.b
¶ 53
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	–length 	of
agreement, 	third
party 	names 	and
royalty rates
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE 	for 	length
of 	agreement 	and 	third
party 	names, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for royalty rates, supra §
III.B.4.ii.a.
¶ 54
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	–minimum
guarantee 	and
payment schedule
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a.
¶ 55
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e.
¶¶ 56–59
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	–length 	of
agreement, 	third
party 	names 	and
minimum guarantee
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE 	for 	length
of 	agreement 	and 	third
party 	names, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for 	minimum 	guarantee
values, supra § III.B.4.ii.a.
¶¶ 60–62
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	–length 	of
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE 	for 	length
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 27 of 43

- 28 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
agreement, 	third
party names
of 	agreement 	and 	third
party 	names, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.e-f.
¶¶ 63–64
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	–length 	of
agreement, 	third
party 	names 	and
minimum 	guarantee
and royalty rates
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE 	for 	length
of 	agreement 	and 	third
party 	names, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for 	minimum 	guarantee
values 	and 	royalty rates,
supra § III.B.4.ii.a.
¶¶ 65–66
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	–length 	of
agreement, 	third
party 	names 	and
minimum 	guarantee
and royalty rates
DENIED 	for 	length 	of
agreement and third party
names, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for 	minimum 	guarantee
values 	and 	royalty rates,
supra § III.B.4.ii.a.
¶¶ 67–68
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE 	for 	third
party 	names, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e.
¶¶ 69–70
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE 	for 	third
party 	names, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e.
¶¶ 71–73
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names, length of the
agreement, 	royalty
rates 	and 	minimum
guarantee
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE 	for 	length
of 	agreement 	and 	third
party 	names, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for 	minimum 	guarantee
values 	and 	royalty rates,
supra § III.B.4.ii.a.
¶¶ 74–75
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE 	for 	third
party information, supra §
III.B.4.ii.e.
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 28 of 43

- 29 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
¶¶ 76–77
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names, length of the
agreement, 	royalty
rates 	and 	minimum
guarantee
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE 	for 	length
of 	agreement 	and 	third
party 	names, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for 	minimum 	guarantee
values 	and 	royalty rates,
supra § III.B.4.ii.a.
¶¶ 78–79
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names, length of the
agreement, 	royalty
rates 	and 	minimum
guarantee
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE 	for 	length
of 	agreement 	and 	third
party 	names, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for 	minimum 	guarantee
values 	and 	royalty rates,
supra § III.B.4.ii.a.
¶¶ 79–80
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE 	for 	third
party 	names, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e
¶¶ 81–82
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names, length of the
agreement, 	royalty
rates 	and 	minimum
guarantee
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE 	for 	length
of 	agreement 	and 	third
party 	names, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for 	minimum 	guarantee
values 	and 	royalty rates,
supra § III.B.4.ii.a.
¶¶ 82–83
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names, length of the
agreement, 	royalty
rates 	and 	minimum
guarantee
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE 	for 	length
of 	agreement 	and 	third
party 	names, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for 	minimum 	guarantee
values 	and 	royalty rates,
supra § III.B.4.ii.a.
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 29 of 43

- 30 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
¶ 84
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names, length of the
agreement, 	royalty
rates 	and 	minimum
guarantee
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE 	for 	length
of 	agreement 	and 	third
party 	names, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for 	minimum 	guarantee
values 	and 	royalty rates,
supra § III.B.4.ii.a.
¶ 86
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	–
Confidential
settlement 	of
litigation
GRANTED, 	the 	Court
finds 	that 	confidential
settlement 	information 	is
“traditionally kept secret”
for 	which 	there 	are
“compelling 	reasons” 	to
keep 	such 	information
under seal. See e.g.,
Al 	Otro 	Lado, 	Inc. 	v.
Mayorkas, 	No.
317CV02366BASKSC,
2021 WL 666861, at *2
(S.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2021)
(citing 	Kamakana, 	447
F.3d at 1178).
¶¶ 93–95
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names, length of the
agreement, 	royalty
rates 	and 	minimum
guarantee
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE 	for 	length
of 	agreement 	and 	third
party 	names, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for 	minimum 	guarantee
values 	and 	royalty rates,
supra § III.B.4.ii.a.
¶¶ 97–99
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names, length of the
agreement, scope of
license
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.e-f
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 30 of 43

- 31 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
¶¶ 99–102
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names, length of the
agreement, scope of
license 	and 	partner
attributes
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE 	for 	third
party names and length of
agreement 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for partner attributes, since
redacted portions relate to
Upper 	Deck 	and 	its
licensors’ 	proprietary
business strategies, 	supra
§§ III.B.4.ii.b-d.
¶ 103
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	– 	scope 	of
license 	and 	partner
attributes
GRANTED, 	since
redacted portions relate to
Upper 	Deck 	and 	its
licensors’ 	proprietary
business strategies, 	supra
§§ III.B.4.ii.b-d.
¶ 107
Trade secret – Pixels
sales data spreadsheet
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.i.
¶ 110
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	– 	scope 	of
license 	and 	third
party names
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e.
¶ 112
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	– 	scope 	of
license 	and 	third
party 	names 	and
business trade secrets
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e.
¶¶ 113–114
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	– 	scope 	of
license 	and 	third
party names
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e.
¶¶ 115, 118
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – amount of
damages 	and 	third
party names
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e.
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 31 of 43

- 32 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
¶¶ 119–120
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names, length of the
agreement, 	royalty
rates 	and 	minimum
guarantee 	and
damage calculations
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	for 	third
party names and length of
agreement, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for royalty rates, minimum
guarantee 	values 	and
damages 	calculations,
supra § III.B.4.ii.a.
¶¶ 121–122
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names, length of the
agreement, 	royalty
rates 	and 	minimum
guarantee 	and
damage 	calculations
and 	business 	trade
secrets
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	for 	third
party names and length of
agreement, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for royalty rates, minimum
guarantee 	values 	and
damages 	calculations,
supra 	§ 	III.B.4.ii.a;
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE 	for
“business 	trade 	secrets”
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. . .”).
¶¶ 124–127
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names, length of the
agreement, 	royalty
rates 	and 	minimum
guarantee 	and
damage calculations
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	for 	third
party names and length of
agreement, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for royalty rates, minimum
guarantee 	values 	and
damages 	calculations,
supra § III.B.4.ii.a
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 32 of 43

- 33 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
¶ 127
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	– 	damage
calculations
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a
¶¶ 132–133
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	– 	damage
calculations 	and
Pixels 	sales 	data
spreadsheet
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a
p. 81 – List of
interviewees
Privacy – third parties
and 	expert 	witness
information
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e.
Schedule 	1
(Table 	of
Upper
Deck’s
Sublicenses)
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names and scope of
license 	and
agreement length
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE 	for 	third
party 	names, 	length 	of
agreement, and 	scope of
license, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e-f;
Schedule
2.1(Sales
and Royalties
–Trends
International)
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names and scope of
license 	and 	royalty
and 	payment
information
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE 	for 	third
party names and length of
agreement, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for royalty rates, minimum
guarantee 	values 	and
damages 	calculations,
supra § III.B.4.ii.a.
Schedule 2.2
(Sales
and
Royalties)
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – sales data
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a
Schedule 	3
(Pixel Sales –
Detail)
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – Pixels sales
data
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a
Schedule 3.1
(Pixels Sales
– 	Sales 	by
Product
Type)
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – Pixels sales
data
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 33 of 43

- 34 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
Schedule 3.2
(Pixels Sales
– 	Sales 	by
Artist Name)
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – Pixels sales
data
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a
Schedule 3.3
(Pixels Sales
– 	Sales 	by
Artwork
Name)
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – Pixels sales
data
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a
Schedule 3.4
(Pixels Sales
– 	List 	of
Images 	by
Artist)
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – Pixels sales
data
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a
Exhibit 	105
to 	Pixels’
Motion 	to
Seal 	(ECF
No. 78)
Email 	chain
between
Upper
Deck’s
president and
Jump 23, Inc.
The scope of
the 	Jordan
license 	and
enforcement
of the license
are 	being
discussed 	by
upper
management
in 	a 	trade
secret
discussion,
which would
be
advantageous
for
competitors
and
The 	scope 	of 	the
Jordan 	license 	and
enforcement 	of 	the
license 	are 	being
discussed 	by 	upper
management 	in 	a
trade 	secret
discussion, 	which
would 	be
advantageous 	for
competitors 	and
unscrupulous 	actors
to know.
GRANTED, since sealed
exhibits 	relate 	to 	Upper
Deck 	and 	its 	licensors’
proprietary 	business
negotiations, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.ii.b-d.
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 34 of 43

- 35 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
unscrupulous
actors 	to
know.
Exhibit F to
Upper
Deck’s
Motion 	to
Seal 	(ECF
No. 102)
Pixels’ Sales
Data, 	which
the 	entire
document
should 	be
filed 	under
seal 	in
conformity
with 	the
Court’s 	July
28, 	2025
Order as it is
the 	same
document the
Court
previously
granted 	a
Motion 	to
Seal--
Additionally,
Plaintiff
seeks 	to
redact
Exhibit 	9
attached 	to
It 	is 	the 	same
document 	the 	Court
previously granted a
Motion 	to 	Seal--
Additionally,
Plaintiff 	seeks 	to
redact 	Exhibit 	9
attached to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary
Adjudication. 	(ECF
No. 	81.) 	Defendant
responds in support,
noting 	that 	this
document 	contains
confidential sales and
contributor
information. 	(See
ECF No. 87-1 at ¶5.)
Exhibit 	9 	clearly
contains Defendant’s
sales data. (ECF No.
83-4.) 	The 	Court
finds that protecting
this 	sales 	data
GRANTED, 	since 	the
Court 	has 	previously
sealed the same document,
supra § III.B.4.i.
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 35 of 43

- 36 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
Plaintiff’s
Motion 	for
Summary
Adjudication.
(ECF 	No.
81.)
Defendant
responds
in 	support,
noting 	that
this
document
contains
confidential
sales 	and
contributor
information.
(See ECF No.
87-1 	at 	¶5.)
Exhibit 	9
clearly
contains
Defendant’s
sales 	data.
(ECF No. 83-
4.) The Court
finds 	that
protecting
this sales data
presents 	a
compelling
reason 	to
seal.
presents a compelling
reason to seal.
Exhibit M to
Upper
Deck’s
Motion 	to 	¶ 	17 	and
footnote 23
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	– 	date 	of
agreement 	and
alternatives 	to
signatures
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for date of
agreement, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.f
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 36 of 43

- 37 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
Seal 	(ECF
No. 102)
¶ 19
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e
¶ 	23 	and
footnote 	46
and 47
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – pixels sales
data 	and 	damage
calculations
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.i.
¶¶ 32–33
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – Pixels sales
data 	and 	damage
calculations 	and
alternatives 	to
signatures
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.i, III.B.4.ii.c.
Footnote 61
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	– 	scope 	of
license
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.f.
¶¶ 34–35
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – pixels sales
data 	and 	damage
calculations
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.i.
¶¶ 42–43
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – pixels sales
data 	and 	damage
calculations
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.i
¶ 47
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names and length of
agreement
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e-f
¶¶ 48–50
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names and length of
agreement 	and
minimum 	guarantee
and royalty rates
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	for 	third
party names and length of
agreement, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for royalty rates, minimum
guarantee values, supra §
III.B.4.ii.a
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 37 of 43

- 38 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
¶¶ 50–53
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names and length of
agreement 	and
minimum 	guarantee
and royalty rates
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	for 	third
party names and length of
agreement, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for royalty rates, minimum
guarantee values, supra §
III.B.4.ii.a
¶¶ 54–55
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names and length of
agreement
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e-f
¶¶ 56–57
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names and length of
agreement 	and
minimum 	guarantee
and royalty rates
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	for 	third
party names and length of
agreement, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for royalty rates, minimum
guarantee 	values 	and
damages 	calculations,
supra § III.B.4.ii.a
¶¶ 57–59
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names and length of
agreement 	and
minimum 	guarantee
and royalty rates
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	for 	third
party names and length of
agreement, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for royalty rates, minimum
guarantee values, supra §
III.B.4.ii.a
¶¶ 60–62
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names and length of
agreement 	and
minimum 	guarantee
and royalty rates
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	for 	third
party names and length of
agreement, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for royalty rates, minimum
guarantee values, supra §
III.B.4.ii.a
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 38 of 43

- 39 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
¶¶ 62–64
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names and length of
agreement 	and
minimum 	guarantee
and royalty rates
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	for 	third
party names and length of
agreement, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for royalty rates, minimum
guarantee values, supra §
III.B.4.ii.a
¶ 64
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	– 	damage
calculation
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a
¶ 65
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e
¶¶ 66–67
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names and length of
agreement
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e-f
¶¶ 67–69
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names 	and
minimum 	guarantee
and royalty rates
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	for 	third
party 	names, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e; 	GRANTED
for royalty rates, minimum
guarantee values, supra §
III.B.4.ii.a
¶¶ 69–71
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names and length of
agreement 	and
minimum 	guarantee
and royalty rates
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	for 	third
party names and length of
agreement, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for royalty rates, minimum
guarantee values, supra §
III.B.4.ii.a
¶ 71
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 39 of 43

- 40 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
¶¶ 71–72
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e
¶¶ 72–74
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names and length of
agreement 	and
minimum 	guarantee
and royalty rates
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	for 	third
party names and length of
agreement, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for royalty rates, minimum
guarantee values, supra §
III.B.4.ii.a
¶ 75
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e
¶ 	77 	and
footnote 175
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names and length of
agreement 	and
personal
requirements 	and
scope of license
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	for 	third
party 	names; 	and 	scope
and length of agreement,
supra 	§ 	III.B.4.ii.e-f;
GRANTED 	for 	personal
requirements 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.d.
¶¶ 77–78
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names and length of
agreement 	and
minimum 	guarantee
and royalty rates
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	for 	third
party names and length of
agreement, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for royalty rates, minimum
guarantee values, supra §
III.B.4.ii.a
¶ 79
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	–length 	of
agreement
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.f
¶ 80
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	– 	personal
requirements
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.d.
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 40 of 43

- 41 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
¶ 81
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	–length 	of
agreement
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.f
¶ 82
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names, royalty rates
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	for 	third
party 	names, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e; 	GRANTED
for royalty rates, supra §
III.B.4.ii.a.
¶ 89
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	–length 	of
agreement
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.f
¶ 89
Trade 	secret 	sales
data from Pixels
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a.
¶¶ 91–92
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	–sales 	data
and third party names
and royalty rates
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	for 	third
party 	names, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for 	sales 	data 	supra 	§
III.B.4.i, 	royalty 	rates,
minimum 	guarantee
values, supra § III.B.4.ii.a
¶¶ 92–94
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	–sales 	data
and third party names
and royalty rates and
minimum guarantees
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	for 	third
party names and length of
agreement, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for 	sales 	data, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.i, 	and 	minimum
guarantee values, supra §
III.B.4.ii.a
¶¶ 95–97
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	–sales 	data
and royalty rates
GRANTED, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.i, III.B.4.ii.a
¶¶ 98–100
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy 	–sales 	data
GRANTED, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.i, III.B.4.ii.a
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 41 of 43

- 42 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
and royalty rates and
damage calculations
Exhibit 3
Sales 	data 	and
damage calculations
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.i
Exhibit 4
Sales 	data 	and
damage calculations
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.i
Exhibit 5.1
Sales 	data 	and
damage calculations
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.i
Exhibit 5.2
Sales 	data 	and
damage calculations
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.i
Exhibit 6.1
Sales 	data 	and
damage calculations
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.i
Exhibit 6.2
Sales 	data 	and
damage calculations
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.i
Exhibit 7.1
Sales 	data 	and
damage calculations
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.i
Exhibit 7.2
Sales 	data 	and
damage calculations
GRANTED, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.i
Exhibit 9
Third 	party 	names
and 	sales 	data 	and
royalty amounts
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	for 	third
party 	names, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e; 	GRANTED
for 	sales 	data, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.i, 	and 	royalty
amounts, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a
Exhibit 10
Third 	party 	names
and 	sales 	data 	and
royalty amounts
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	for 	third
party 	names, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e; 	GRANTED
for 	sales 	data, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.i, 	and 	royalty
amounts, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 42 of 43

- 43 - 24cv923
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 	Pin Cite
Upper 	Deck's
Reasoning (ECF No.
114)
Court’s Ruling
Exhibit 11.1
Trade 	secret 	and
privacy – third party
names and length of
agreement 	and
minimum 	guarantee
and royalty rates
DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, 	for 	third
party names and length of
agreement, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.e-f; 	GRANTED
for 	sales 	data, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.i, 	and 	royalty
amounts, 	supra 	§
III.B.4.ii.a
Exhibit 11.2
Sales data and royalty
rate
GRANTED, 	supra 	§§
III.B.4.i, III.B.4.ii.a
Case 3:24-cv-00923-BAS-DEB Document 160 Filed 12/09/25 PageID.<pageID>
Page 43 of 43