So,
@RightSaidFred , if you look at what the court did (and keep in mind that it's a "friendly" court in North Carolina), the judge said "hey, it would seem that the truly relevant party who might want this filed under seal is ESPN, and nobody bothered to include ESPN in this little 'seal' party."
The judge also talked about burden of proof, etc. If I understand the meaning (and it's possible I don't), it seems like the Court is not going to rule until ESPN makes ITS OWN case as to why this document should be sealed and/or redacted.
If any court is going to grant the ACC's motion, it will be a North Carolina court. Still, I'm not sure what is so important and "sensitive" in a **** TV contract that would need to be protected under seal. Unless the ESPN TV contract includes all the identies of US spies operating in foreign countries. Then I could see a reason...
There's no business process secrets, customer lists, patents, or anything else referenced that would suffer some sort of irreparable damage upon disclosure.