Attorneys for PGA Tour ask judge to unseal details of contracts signed by players who defected to LIV Golf

Table of Contents

Attorneys for the PGA Tour asked a federal court to unseal certain details of contracts signed by former players who left the tour to join the LIV Golf circuit.

In a court filing, the PGA Tours lawyers stated that they oppose the plaintiffs in an Antitrust lawsuit against them to seal terms of their contracts to LIV Golf. They argued that such details are not competitively sensitive.

Instead they are highly relevant for the core issues of this litigation, and already in public domain, the lawyers wrote.

Past major champions Phil MickelsonAnd Bryson deChambeauAmong the 11 plaintiffs that sued the PGA Tour were they alleging it was trying to squash LIV Golfs upstart circuit by threatening players with lifetime bans or suspensions for participating in LIV Golf events. The lawsuit also claimed that the PGA Tour threatened sponsors vendors and agents to coerce participants to give up their opportunities to play in LIV golf events. It orchestrated an illegal group boycott with European Tour in order to deny LIV Golf access their members.

Three LIV Golf players Talor Gooch, Matt JonesAnd Hudson SwaffordThey unsuccessfully applied for temporary restraining orders, which would have allowed them compete in the FedEx Cup Playoffs.

The judge was presented heavily redacted LIV Golf contracts by attorneys for the players who were suspended. The PGA Tours lawyers are trying to undo many of the details of those contracts, including LIV Golf regulations for players who wish to compete in events, requirements for wearing LIV Golf logos during competition, and monetary penalties for violating LIV Golf rules and regulations.

The PGA Tour stated that it is not opposed to sealing the individually negotiated terms of plaintiffs’ contracts or confidential personally identifiable data.

The lawyers for the PGA Tour wrote that the law allows the broad public access to judicial material. This right can be abrogated only if compelling reasons exist to seal a document. The Court should deny Plaintiffs request to seal generic, public-known material without any competitive sensitivity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect, Share, and Grow with Fellow Golfers

Take Your Game to the Next Level © All Rights Reserved 2023