Order | Filed: July 12, 2026
| Entered: July 12, 2026
Hender v. Nike, Inc.
Civil Rights: Employment | Oregon
Order on Motion
ORDER: The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff's Motion 765 . For purposes of this Order, the Court adopts Plaintiff's definitions regarding the "Nike Notice Exhibits," the "Nike Response Exhibits," and the "Starfish Evidence." See ECF 765 at 2-3.
The Court finds that Defendant concedes that in approximately February or March 2018, it received the Starfish Questionnaires it produced in discovery. Ms. Graham's testimony is thus not necessary to establish this fact.
As to whether Defendant received notice of the Project Starfish Summary, Defendant disputes it received it. Thus, the Court denies Plaintiff's request to establish this as fact. Based on Plaintiffs pretrial filings, it appears Plaintiff expects to establish this alleged fact through Ms. Strongs testimony. ECF 765 at 8. Accordingly, it does not appear Ms. Grahams testimony is required for this disputed fact either.
As to what quotes from the Starfish Evidence Plaintiff may use during her opening statement, the Court finds that Plaintiff may only use quotes from the Starfish Questionnaires as excerpted in the one-page illustrative aid. Plaintiff may not use quotes from other Starfish Evidence unless such evidence is stipulated to. That said, if Plaintiff has a good faith belief that based on her witnesses and the Rules of Evidence the Starfish Evidence will become admissible at trial, then Plaintiff may discuss that evidence in her opening statement.
As to what quotes from the Starfish Evidence Plaintiff may show to Ms. Strong during Strong's examination, the Court finds this will depend on Strong's personal knowledge of the evidence. Ordered by Judge Amy M. Baggio. (jp)
Order | Filed: July 11, 2026
| Entered: July 11, 2026
Hender v. Nike, Inc.
Civil Rights: Employment | Oregon
Order on Motion
ORDER: The Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Redact Third-Party Employee Names from Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits 770 . The Court finds that the date to file Motions regarding confidential/AEO designations, as set forth in the Pretrial Order 742 , has long passed. Moreover, Defendant filed its Motion, requesting Plaintiff to redact information from Plaintiff's trial exhibits, only three days before trial is set to begin. The Court further finds that Defendant cannot demonstrate compelling reasons for its proposed redactions. "Defendant largely relies on generalized assertions of purported compelling reasons" rather than providing concrete examples of potential harm. Cahill v. Nike, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-01477-JR, 2023 WL 9227107, at *3 (D. Or. Oct. 11, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:18-CV-01477-JR, 2024 WL 136887 (D. Or. Jan. 5, 2024), aff'd sub nom. Cahill v. Non-Party Media Organizations Insider Inc., No. 24-165, 2025 WL 841196 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2025). And as the Ninth Circuit has stated, "a court may seal records only when it finds 'a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.'" Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)).
That said, the Court requests that Plaintiff avoid, when possible, using the names of complainants in her presentation of evidence out of respect to those individuals and because they are nonparties to this litigation.
In light of the June 8, 2026, deadline set forth in the Pretrial Order 742 , the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion 769 and denies any further requests by either party relating to confidential/AEO designations.. Ordered by Judge Amy M. Baggio. (jp)