IN THE STATE COURT OF EFFINGHAM COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No.: ST13CV058RT USA GYMNASTICS, INC. USA GYMNASTICS, SAVANNAH METRO, INC., AND WILLIAM A. Defendants. RESPONSE OF USA GYMNASTICS TO THE MOTION TO INTERVENE AND UNSEAL EVIDENCE OF THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR AND MOTION TO SEAL RECORDS PURSUANT TO UNIFORM STATE COURT RULE 2] Defendant USA Gymnastics, Inc. Gymnastics?) respectfully submits this Brief in Response to The Indianapolis Star?s Motion to Intervene and Unseal Evidence, and also ?les this Motion to Seal Records Pursuant to Uniform State Court Rule 21. I. INTRODUCTION The Indianapolis Star ("Indy Star") has moved to intervene and unseal evidence, arguing that it must be permitted to inject itself into this lawsuit for the sole purpose of obtaining access to extraordinarily sensitive and con?dential USA Gymnastics ?les relating to former professional members, some of Whom are on the permanently ineligible list published by USA Gymnastics (the "Sealed Documents?). Plaintiff?s counsel ?led the Sealed Documents with the Court, pursuant to a Stipulated Con?dentiality and Protective Order signed by this Court, with their opposition to the summary judgment motion ?led on behalf of USA Gymnastics. Indy Star argues that it should be permitted to intervene in this action in order to pursue its contention that both the Court and the parties failed to meet the requirements of Uniform State Court Rule 21 prior to sealing the documents. Indy Star additionally argues that the disclosure of the Sealed Documents is justi?ed by the newspaper's efforts to publish an article about some or all of the Sealed Documents. Indy Star's Motion should be denied because it is undisputed that this Court, along with both USA Gymnastics and Plaintiff, previously complied with each of the requirements of Uniform State Court Rule 21 in protecting the Sealed Documents from disclosure in connection with Plaintiff?s Motion to Compel and USA Gymnastics? corresponding Motion for Protective Order. Moreover, the harm likely to he suffered by disclosure of the Sealed Documents greatly outweighs any public interest in their disclosure. Disclosure would also irredeemably prejudice USA Gymnastics' rights in this case, to say nothing of its personal, corporate interest in maintaining the con?dentiality of present and former professional members? ?les. As discussed further below, USA Gymnastics respectfully requests that this Court deny Indy Star's Motion and, if necessary, enter a supplemental Order relating to the Sealed Documents. II. RESPONSE TO INDY STATEMENT OF Indy Star?s recitation of the ?facts? relevant to its motion merely repeats Plaintiff?s contention that USA Gymnastics was aware of the risk posed by McCabe to minors, as well as Plaintiff?s unsupported suggestion, absent any discussion, that any historical decision by USA Gymnastics with regard to the handling of prior, unrelated abuse allegations is a ?core issue? in this litigation. Indy Star also frivolously asserts again without any basis in the record or reality that USA Gymnastics has, ?time and again,? placed young people at an increased risk of abuse. Even where Indy Star discusses actual facts, including the procedural background of this case, it omits most of the relevant facts known to the Court and counsel for the parties about the steps followed to seal the documents. If Indy Star's representatives had contacted undersigned counsel to discuss this matter before ?ling the motion then they would have known how the Court and counsel worked together to address the con?dentiality issues and follow the requisite steps to seal the documents. Indy Star asserts that the Court and the parties violated Uniform State Court Rule 21 by failing to follow its procedures in designating the Sealed Documents as con?dential. To the contrary, this Court conscientiously and exhaustively considered the issues presented by the Sealed Documents, holding a hearing, subsequently communicating with counsel for both parties via conference call, and inviting not only brie?ng but supplemental brie?ng on the issues presented, before holding yet another hearing. The Court went above and beyond the requirements of the Rule. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On or about January 29, 2015, Plaintiff served Second Interrogatories and Requests for Production on USA Gymnastics seeking information and documents relating to former USA Gymnastics members declared ?permanently ineligible? pursuant to the organization?s Bylaws, as well as certain ?les associated with those former members for a more-than ten (10) year span encompassing January 1, 1996 to December 31, 2006. [See Plaintiffs Mot. to Compel.] USA Gymnastics objected to the production of such information and documents as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial, among other reasons. USA Gymnastics' Resp. to Plaintiffs Mot. to Compel and Mot. for Protective Order.] Thereafter, on or about April 10, 2015, Plaintiff ?led a Motion to Compel USA Gymnastics? reSponses to the Requests at issue. [Plaintiffs Mot. to Compel] USA Gymnastics responded and moved for a protective order via motion ?led on or about May 7, 2015, explaining that there was no connection between the materials sought and the tenuous hearsay reports received regarding McCabe in 1998, as well as the danger of unfair prejudice given the extremely sensitive and con?dential nature of the information contained in those ?les. Gymnastics' Resp. to Plaintiffs Mot. to Compel and Mot. for Protective Order.] As stated in USA Gymnastics? brief: Production of the information requested would also require USA Gymnastics to reveal highly sensitive information, including the names and other identifying information of USA Gymnastics member-victims, of inappropriate sexual advances or other wrongful conduct, embarrassing details related to such conduct, and speci?c information regarding allegations, whether fully substantiated or not, and whether true or false, as to former members, both those declared permanently ineligible and those cleared of any wrongdoing, all in cases that have nothing to do with Plaintiff?s allegations. [Id. at On May 26, 2015, the Court held a hearing on the pending motions. The Court agreed that the materials at issue were extremely sensitive and con?dential, but encouraged the parties to work together to draft a Stipulated Con?dentiality and Protective Order (the ?Protective Order?) allowing Plaintiff?s counsel to review the requested documents at the of?ce of USA Gymnastics? counsel in lndianapolis, Indiana, but not make copies, before a second hearing was conducted to address any limited use of that information. The Court signed the Protective Order submitted by the parties on June 15, 2015. [Stipulated Con?dentiality and Protective Order.] The Protective Order speci?es that the Sealed Documents are ?highly sensitive and con?dential and entitled to protection pursuant to O.C.G.A. [Id at The Protective Order also states that the con?dential documents contemplated therein ?shall not be disclosed to anyone? other than the parties, their counsel and employees, and witnesses, deponents, or court reporters for the duration of the litigation. [Id at On July 16 and 17, 2015, Plaintiff?s counsel had an opportunity to review the documents, as permitted by the Court, in Indianapolis. Thereafter, on July 29, 2015, the parties conducted a conference call with the Court regarding that review. During that call, the Court asked Plaintiff to identify three (3) ?les in support of her prior Motion to Compel arguments and to provide supplemental letter brie?ng in that regard. The Court also invited letter brie?ng from USA Gymnastics. By letter dated August 31, 2015, counsel for USA Gymnastics wrote to the Court in further opposition to Plaintiff?s Motion to Compel. Gymnastics Letter Brief (Aug. 31, 2015).] On or about September 1, 2015, Plaintiff ?led a Supplemental Brief in Support of Her Motion to Compel, setting forth the bases upon which she contended that the Sealed Documents might be relevant to her claims with reference to three speci?c ?les as requested by the Court. [Plaintiffs Supp. Brief in Support of Mot. to Compel] USA Gymnastics responded on or about September 16, 2015, incorporating many of the arguments in its prior letter brief and highlighting the lack of relevance of the three ?les identi?ed to Plaintiff?s claims, including the distinguishable circumstances at issue. Gymnastics' Resp. to Plaintiffs Supp. Brief in Support of Mot. to Compel] On September 16, 2015, the Court held a second hearing on Plaintiff?s Motion to Compel and USA Gymnastics? Motion for a Protective Order. Thereafter, on September 23, 2015, the Court granted in part and reserved decision in part on Plaintiff Motion to Compel, instructing USA Gymnastics to produce the Sealed Documents from January 1, 1996 to December 31, 2006, but pursuant to the Protective Order, and with instructions to Plaintiffs counsel limiting use of the information, while also keeping the documents under seal. [Order (Sep. 23, 2015).] On or about February 26, 2016, in response to USA Gymnastics? pending Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff counsel ?led a 26-page, single-spaced response brief. [Plaintiffs Resp. to USA Gymnastics? Mot. for S. Although the brief attached each of the ?les associated with the Sealed Documents as an exhibit, under seal, none of Plaintiffs arguments in opposition to USA Gymnastics? Motion in fact rested on the contents of the Sealed Documents, nor pointed to any speci?c facts in those documents making them relevant to the McCabe matter. Accordingly, the documents ?led under seal are not material to the resolution of USA Gymnastics' pending Summary Judgment Motion, and are not ripe for public consumption as sought by Indy Star. IV. ARGUMENT AND CITATION 0F AUTHORITY A. Indy Star has not Cited any Legitimate Basis for Intervention Indy Star cites inapplicable federal cases from foreign judicial circuits in support of its Motion to Intervene. Indy Star's citation to those cases also includes only out-of-context parenthetical quotes relating to issues having nothing to do with the present dispute. The lone Georgia case cited relates to a trial court?s orders closing the courtroom to the press in a criminal proceeding, and has no application here. R. W. Page Corp. v. Lumpkin, 249 Ga. 576, 578-79, 292 815, 819 (1982). In fact, Indy Star fails to include any discussion of the statute that in fact governs intervention in Georgia, O.C.G.A. 9-11-24. That statute provides, in relevant part: Intervention of right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) When a statute confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) When the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject matter of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties. Permissive intervention. Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) When a statute confers a conditional right to intervene; or (2) When an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common. In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties. 0.C.G.A. 9?11?24. Indy Star cites no statute mandating an ?unconditional right to intervene? in this matter as contemplated by Section Uniform State Court Rule 21.5 notes that "any person" may seek review of an order sealing records, but only for "good cause." Unif. State. Ct. R. 21.5. Nor has Indy Star asserted any interest in the substance of the action Plaintist allegations against William McCabe and USA Gymnastics nor set forth any basis for the Court to conclude that any ?nal disposition of the action will affect any of Indy Star?s interests as set forth in O.C.G.A. Indy Star is likewise unable to present any credible argument for permissive intervention. It cites no statute conferring any right to intervene as contemplated by 9-11- since Uniform State Court Rule 21.5 applies with regard to "any person" only where "good cause? exists. The only interest claimed by Indy Star relates to its desire to publish a pre- Olympics ?expose.? As set forth below, there is no legitimate public interest in the Sealed Documents, all of which are between 10 and 20 years old. Indy Star also fails to identify any claim or defense relevant to any question of law or fact in this lawsuit that is at issue, as required by O.C.G.A. It has long been the law in Georgia that, where no interest of the intervenor is cited or shown, a Court may properly deny a motion to intervene. S. Bell Tel. Tel. Co. v. Georgia Pub. Serv. Comm?n, 203 Ga. 832, 833, 49 38, 41 (1948). Moreover, ?persons who are not parties to a suit cannot ?le an intervention? unless ?the intervenor sets up some right that would be directly affected by the judgment.? State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jiles, 115 Ga. App. 193, 195, 154 286, 288 (1967). ?In such a case the interest of the intervenor must be of such a direct and immediate character that he will either gain or lose by the direct effect of the judgment, and must be created by the claim in suit.? Id. Where there is no ?direct interest or right relating to the property or transaction which is the subject matter of the action? a trial court abuses its discretion if it permits intervention. E. g, Potter '5 Properties, LLC v. VNS Corp, 306 Ga. App. 621, 624, 703 79, 81 (2010). Because any review of this Court?s decision regarding Indy Star?s Motion to Intervene will be considered under an ?abuse of discretion? standard, the Court is well within its rights to deny the Motion. Buckler v. DeKalb CW, 290 Ga. App. 190, 195, 659 398, 402 (2008). B. The Court and the Parties Complied with All the Requirements of Uniform State Court Rule 21 Even assuming Indy Star?s intervention motion is proper as a matter of Georgia law, no basis exists for its contention that either the Court or the parties previously failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Uniform State Court Rule 21. That Rule provides, generally, that ?[a]ll court records are public and are to be available for public inspection.? Unif. State Ct. R. 21. Court records may be protected from such disclosure, however, either where ?limited by law? or as otherwise set forth in Rule 21. Rule 21.1 provides: Upon motion by any party to any civil or criminal action, or upon the court's own motion, after hearing, the court may limit access to court ?les respecting that action. The order of limitation shall specify the part of the ?le to which access is limited, the nature and duration of the limitation, and the reason for limitation. Unif. State Ct. R. 21.1. Rule 21.2 further states: An order limiting access shall not be granted except upon a ?nding that the harm otherwise resulting to the privacy of a person in interest clearly outweighs the public interest. Unif. State. Ct. R. 21.2. While Georgia law presumes a right of public access to court proceedings, Doe v. Archdiocese of Atlanta, 328 Ga. App. 324, 328-29, 761 864, 868 (2014), cert. denied (Jan. 12, 2015), "the presumption of open judicial proceedings is not absolute. Georgia law permits a com to limit or even prohibit public access to its records in exceptional circumstances if it determines that the harm otherwise resulting to the privacy of a person in interest clearly outweighs the public interest.? Id, 328 Ga. App. at 329, 761 at 868 (internal quotation omitted). Such ?exceptional circumstances? are present here, and the Protective Order entered in this case following the Court?s May 26, 2015 hearing satis?es all of the requirements set forth by Rule 21. The Protective Order, drafted by counsel at the Court?s instruction, followed from both Plaintiff? 3 Motion to Compel and USA Gymnastics? Motion for a Protective Order, and was entered only after a hearing. The Protective Order speci?cally delineates the materials including the Sealed Documents - protected from disclosure, and the ?highly sensitive and con?dential? nature of the materials as the basis for that protection. The Protective Order therefore speci?cally contemplates that the documents will not be accessible by the public, including when ?led with the Court. The Protective Order also states that the Sealed Documents will remain protected for the duration of the litigation, and must be destroyed or returned at the conclusion of the case. The Protective Order does not, on its face, include a recitation regarding the harm presented by disclosure as outweighing the public interest in access to the documents. Rule 21.2 does not specify, however, that such a ?nding be set forth in any order; rather, it states only that the Court must make such a ?nding. This Court speci?cally made such a ?nding at the hearings when it contemplated the harm presented by the disclosure of Sealed Documents, including both founded and unfounded allegations relating to alleged wrongdoers, and information about claimed and actual Victims, as outweighing any public interest in gaining access to the ?les. No basis exists, therefore, for Indy Star?s contention that the Court and the parties failed to meet the requirements of Rule 21. C. The Court May, at its Discretion, Enter a Supplemental Order Sealing the Documents and Related Testimony Following a Hearing Despite the fact USA Gymnastics believes this step unnecessary, the Court may now clarify the record and ensure that the extremely sensitive and con?dential documents at issue are protected from disclosure by entering a supplemental order specifying that neither Indy Star nor any other person or entity may obtain access to the Sealed Documents. Such an order can also explicitly state that the harm presented by disclosure, both to USA Gymnastics and the subjects of those ?les, outweighs any public interest in their disclosure, as set forth below. The decision whether to approve the sealing of documents is left to the Court?s discretion, and ?[t]he trial court judges of Georgia have been granted extremely broad discretionary and supervisory powers with regard to their courts and the records in their courts.? Sharpton v. Hall, 296 Ga. App. 251, 253, 674 105, 106 (2009) (quoting Atlanta 10 Journal v. Long, 259 Ga. 23, 28, 376 865, 869 (1989)). Georgia law in this regard accords with that expounded by the United States Supreme Court, which has long held that "[t]he common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute the decision whether to permit access is best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc, 435 US. 589, 589, 98 S. Ct. 1306, 1308, 55 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1978). Moreover, if the Court and parties, previously failed to comply with some portion of the procedural requirements contemplated by Rule 21, then Georgia law speci?cally contemplates that the Court may enter a Rule 21 order at any time upon motion by a party or ?upon the court?s own motion.? Unif. State Ct. R. 21.1. Rule 21.5 similarly provides that an order sealing records may be ?amended by the court entering such order.? Unif. State C. R. 21.5. It is clear, therefore, that the Court may make express supplemental ?ndings contemplated by Rule 21 at this time to con?rm that the letter and spirit of the law were followed. In Savannah College ofArt Design v. School of Visual Arts, Inc. SCAD ?led a motion under seal without ?rst seeking an order protecting the ?ling and associated documents from disclosure. 270 Ga. 791, 792, 515 370, 371 (1999). After a newspaper ?led a motion to unseal the documents, the trial court conducted a hearing and determined that the documents at issue should be publicly-available. Id. The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed, ?nding that the trial court had abused its discretion, holding that privacy interest in maintaining the con?dentiality of settlement documents outweighed any public interest in their disclosure. Id, 270 Ga. at 793, 515 at 372. Thus, the SCAD decision stands for the proposition that a court may, in its discretion, consider issues relating to the necessity of sealing court records at any time. D. Substantive Georgia Law Contemplates that the Documents May be Sealed The General Assembly has long granted the courts of this state broad authority to seal court records. Section 50-18-71 of the Georgia Code speci?es that "[a]ll public records shall be open for personal inspection and copying, except those which by order of a court of this state or by law are specifically exempted from disclosure." O.C.G.A. (emphasis added). By law, "[m]edical or veterinary records and similar files, the disclosure of which would be an invasion of personal privacy," are appropriately shielded from public disclosure. O.C.G.A. 50- "Properly construed, th[is] section forbids disclosure to the general public . records or ?les of any information which would invade the constitutional, statutory or common- law rights of privacy.? Napper v. Georgia Television Co., 257 Ga. 156, 160, 356 640, 644 (1987) (internal citation omitted) (emphasis added). This right of privacy is violated in the face of the publication of "private affairs with which the public has no legitimate concern.? Id. Indy Star of course contends that this Court should exercise its discretion to mandate disclosure, arguing that its planned publication of details regarding the Sealed Documents will serve the public interest by ?preventing USA Gymnastics? coaches from sexually abusing the children under their care.? [Indy Star Mot. at Indy Star offers no explanation, however, of how the disclosure of the Sealed Documents, originating during the period 1996 to 2006, will serve any purpose or remedy any acts of abuse or alleged abuse that took place during that time period, the present or future time periods, or serve any other function than to allow Indy Star to publish a National Enquirer-like article based on events ten to twenty years ago in order to satisfy the economic interests of Indy Star?s advertisers, owners, and investors. As the Court is well aware following the extensive brie?ng on USA Gymnastics? Motion for Summary Judgment, USA Gymnastics is not a law enforcement body, nor empowered under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act to do anything more than establish rules and practices 12 with respect to the administration of the sport of gymnastics in the United States. Moreover, no alleged action or inaction of USA Gymnastics has ever prevented any athlete, parent, or other person from reporting any allegations of alleged abuse to anyone, including law enforcement and child protective services. Keeping the documents at issue under seal is permitted by Georgia law, the Court carefully balanced the interests of all parties when ordering that the documents be used, if at all, under seal and no argument by Indy Star supports a change in the Court's decision. E. The Harm to Persons in Interest Presented by Disclosure Greatly Outweighs Indy Star?s Interest in Access to the Sealed Documents as Contemplated by Uniform State Court Rule 21.2 The Sealed Documents contain precisely the kind of extremely private, con?dential facts and allegations that are appropriately shielded from public disclosure, not only pursuant to substantive law, but also pursuant to Rule 21. In applying Rule 21, Georgia courts have held that ?in cases of clear necessity, identi?ed as instances where privacy rights are in jeopardy, the right of public access should yield.? Savannah Coll. ofArt Design v. Sch. of Visual Arts, Inc, 270 Ga. 791, 793, 515 370, 371-72 (1999). In SCAD, the Georgia Supreme Court held that own privacy interest in maintaining the con?dentiality of settlement documents outweighed the public interest in disclosure. Id, 270 Ga. 791, 793, 515 370, 372 (1999). The Court also speci?cally noted that the documents SCAD sought to protect were few in number, and that the entity ?did not otherwise seek to limit public access to the remaining voluminous ?les in the court records Id. Likewise, here, USA Gymnastics has not taken issue with the public availability of vast categories of documents at issue, nor, for example, ?led any part of its summary judgment submissions under seal. If the Plaintiff had not ?led the Sealed Documents with the brief opposing summary judgment, and such ?ling was not necessary given the opposing arguments, then this ancillary dispute would be moot. 13 Also critical to the Supreme Court?s determination in SCAD was the fact that the settlement documents at issue ?had previously been acknowledged as con?dential by the trial court.? Id. Here, the Court and the parties engaged in extensive brie?ng, along with two (2) hearings, after which all concerned agreed that the documents were highly sensitive, con?dential, and appropriately sealed from the public. This is clearly a situation where the scales of justice tilt in favor of preserving the con?dentiality of the Sealed Documents. As set forth above, the purported bene?ts of disclosure touted by Indy Star are speculative at best, and its arguments about procedural errors by the Court and the parties are based on self-in?icted ignorance due to a lack of due diligence. What is certain, however, is that the disclosure of the Sealed Documents to Indy Star will reveal suf?cient personal details of and circumstances involving victims or alleged victims, even following redactions, allowing the public to possibly identify those individuals, and open the door to undesired contact. Further, disclosure of the Sealed Documents will severely prejudice USA Gymnastics in this lawsuit. The Sealed Documents bear no relevance to Plaintiffs allegations or the wrongful conduct of William McCabe actually at issue with respect to Plaintiff. Indy Star contends that individual has asserted any personal privacy interest in this case Even ignoring USA Gymnastics' own privacy interest, this is a transparently cynical and self-serving argument. It is almost certain that the individuals identi?ed in the Sealed Documents are not even aware of this lawsuit or the possibility that information relating to them may be released to the public. These individuals have a fundamental interest in maintaining the privacy of this information. Nor does Indy Star?s contention that the passage of time somehow lessens the parties? privacy interest have any basis. Indy Star also arrogantly suggests that, while 14 corporate trade secrets or issues of national security are legitimate privacy interests, allegations of the sexual abuse of children is somehow entitled to less privacy protection. Indy Star desperately cites a thirty-year old Eleventh Circuit case in support of its argument? a case that expressly declines to adopt the position sought by Indy Star. Wilson 1). Am. Motors Corp, 759 F.2d 1568, 1570?71 (1 1th Cir. 1985). Indy Star also cites inapplicable Eleventh Circuit and other federal decisions when arguing that materials ?led in opposition to a motion for summary judgment cannot be sealed except under ?compelling? circumstances. E. Chi. Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Ftrestone, Inc, 263 F.3d 1304, 1312 (11th Cir. 2001). The federal standard cited, distinct as it is from the requirements of Georgia law or of Rule 21, is irrelevant. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia v. The Atlanta Journal is also inapposite. 259 Ga. 214, 378 305 (1989). That case dealt with the application of Georgia?s Open Records Act and, speci?cally, that portion of the Act governing disclosures made by public institutions in response to Open Records requests. Id, 259 Ga. at 215, 378 at 306 (1989). Signi?cantly, the Supreme Court?s consideration of the privacy interests articulated by the University System followed from a line of cases considering the relationship between citizens and public of?cials. Id, 259 Ga. at 216, 378 at 307. The case therefore bears no relevance with respect to USA Gymnastics, a private corporation. Similar records have long been deemed con?dential under Georgia law. For example, although employee personnel ?les are generally discoverable, "courts are particularly cautious about ordering the production of such ?les, given the sensitive personal information contained therein." Contino v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Ina, No. 2015 WL 2226229, at *2 (SD. Ga. May 12, 2015). Courts therefore routinely "limit[] the extent of their production[], [including] by entering protective orders." Id. (internal citations Omitted). Such orders 15 appropriately specify that such records must be ?led under seal. Id. at The Sealed Documents constitute analogous internal, con?dential records containing not only sensitive personal information but also allegations relating to former member coaches and children who were member gymnastics students between 1996 and 2006. If such ?les may not appropriately be sealed, it is dif?cult to imagine what categories of documents may appropriately be deemed con?dential. V. CONCLUSION USA Gymnastics recognizes the extremely important role that news organizations like Indy Star play in a free and fair society, as well as the crucial importance of a free press and the foundational nature of that freedom as enshrined in the United States Constitution. Also fundamental to our system of justice is the presumption of innocence for those accused of serious wrongdoing, as well as the fundamental right of privacy. The prejudice and privacy violation that may be suffered by USA Gymnastics and others if the documents at issue are unsealed is extreme, and ?differs from the type of privacy invasion that is suffered by all parties in civil suits.? In re Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 271 Ga. 436, 438, 519 909, 911 (1999). The harm to be suffered upon disclosure therefore greatly outweighs the purported bene?ts of disclosure, and the Sealed Documents should remain sealed. USA Gymnastics therefore respectfully requests that the Court deny Indy Star's Motion to Intervene and to Unseal Evidence, and grant USA Gymnastics' Motion to Seal Records. Such an Order, supplementing the previously~entered Protective Order, will ensure that the extremely sensitive and con?dential documents remain protected from disclosure in recognition of the reality that the harm presented by disclosure vastly outweighs any public interest in their disclosure. l6 Respectfully submitted this 7th day of July, 2016. GILSON ATHANS P.C. Michael .l/Athans Georgia Bar No. 026285 Jeffrey A. Kershaw 980 Hammond Drive, Suite 800 Georgia Bar No. 159054 Atlanta, Georgia 30328 770-512-0300 (Telephone) Attorneys for USA Gymnastics, Inc. d/b/a 770-512-0070 (Facsimile) USA Gymnastics mathans@gilsonathans.com ikershawailgilsonathanscom IN THE STATE COURT OF EFFINGHAM COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA JANE DOE, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No.: ST13CV058RT USA GYMNASTICS, INC. USA GYMNASTICS, SAVANNAH METRO, INC., AND WILLIAM A. MCCABE Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing RESPONSE OF USA GYMNASTICS TO THE MOTION TO INTERVENE AND UNSEAL EVIDENCE OF THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR AND MOTION TO SEAL RECORDS PURSUANT TO UNIFORM STATE COURT RULE 21 on all counsel of record, Via United States mail with proper postage af?xed thereto, addressed as follows: S. Derek Bauer Jeffrey W. Lasky, Esq. Ian K. W. Brian Cornwell, Esq. Baker Hostetler LLP LASKY COOPER LAW 1170 Peachtree Street, NE. 120 West Liberty Street Suite 2400 PO. Box 9086 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Savannah, GA 31412 Attorneys for Intervenor Attorneys for Plainti? The Indianapolis Star This 7th day of July, 2016. ONLY ON NEXT 980 Hammond Drive, Suite 800 Atlanta, Georgia 30328 770-512-0300 (Telephone) 770-512-0070 (Facsimile) mathans@gilsonathans.com jkershaw@gilsonathans.com GILSON ATHANS P.C. Michael zi/Athans Georgia Bar No. 026285 Jeffrey A. Kershaw Georgia Bar No. 159054 Attorneys for USA Gymnastics, Inc. d/b/a USA Gymnastics