Cahill v. Nike

Case Number: 24-2199

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Client: Oregonian Media Group

Background: In 2018, a group of female Nike employees sued the company, alleging gender discrimination. As part of the litigation, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon entered a protective order allowing the parties to file thousands of documents under seal. 

In 2022, Business Insider, Oregonian Media Group, and the Portland Business Journal filed a motion to intervene and unseal the records. A federal district court in Oregon granted the motion in part, inviting the media coalition to renew its request to unseal more information later in the litigation. In 2023, the media coalition filed a motion asking the court to unseal the remaining records, which the court granted and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed.

But in 2024, while Nike’s appeal of the unsealing order was still pending, an attorney for the plaintiffs inadvertently emailed sealed court records to The Oregonian/OregonLive after she met with one of its reporters for a story that was not about the litigation. 

The attorney asked a federal judge to force the outlet to return or destroy the records. A district court denied the request, ruling that The Oregonian/OregonLive obtained the records lawfully and has a First Amendment right to report on them. Nike appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

In March 2025, a Ninth Circuit panel reversed the district court’s ruling, holding that because The Oregonian/OregonLive separately intervened to challenge the protective order in the case, it became a party in the lawsuit and therefore can be punished for reporting on information that’s under seal. The panel sent the case back to the district court for further action.

After the Ninth Circuit panel issued its ruling, attorneys for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press joined The Oregonian/OregonLive’s original counsel to file a petition for rehearing. In the petition, filed on April 1, 2025, they argue the panel’s decision “will put the press to an impossible choice: Refrain from exercising the right of access to judicial records, or risk forfeiting the right to gather the news ‘through means independent of the court’s processes.’”

Related: On the same day it issued its order imposing a prior restraint on The Oregonian/OregonLive, the Ninth Circuit ordered Nike to unseal case filings that contained the names of Nike employees accused of sexual misconduct and discrimination. Learn more about that case, in which Reporters Committee attorneys represented Business Insider, Oregonian Media Group, and the Portland Business Journal.

Filings:

2025-04-01: Petition of Oregonian Media Group for rehearing or rehearing en banc