Judge rules AEW may file redacted versions but can't fully seal wrestler contracts
I had opposed AEW’s motion to seal the contracts
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28424807/govuscourtsflmd461100100.pdf
Magistrate Judge Patricia Barksdale made a ruling today in response to AEW’s motion to seal Ryan Nemeth’s three wrestler contracts from public view. I had opposed AEW’s motion to seal the contracts.
The judge ruled that AEW can refile redacted versions along with a new motion to seal. AEW can’t fully seal the contracts, as the company had requested. I can then file another opposition at that point, if I believe the redacted versions black out too much information. AEW also has the option of withdrawing the contracts as exhibits, but that would mean the judge can’t consider them as part of AEW’s effort to force the dispute with Nemeth to be handled in arbitration in Florida.
If AEW wants the court to consider the contracts, the company has to file a new motion and redacted versions within 21 days after Nemeth puts his first filing on the docket, which he hasn’t yet. Or, if he continues not to appear, AEW has until 111 days after the date of its June 5 complaint, which is September 24.
The judge denied my request for access to file electronically. I have to continue to submit any future filings by physical mail.
This action is in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The federal court district covers Jacksonville, where AEW is headquartered.
I take no position on the merits of the dispute between AEW and Nemeth. I’m only seeking public access to the contracts. My arguments and AEW’s can be read more fully in the filings linked below.
The relevant filings can be read here:
June 5, 2026: AEW’s Complaint and Petition against Ryan Nemeth
June 9, 2026: AEW’s Motion to file Nemeth’s three wrestler contracts under seal
June 26, 2026: Thurston’s Motion to Intervene and Opposition to AEW’s Motion to file under seal
July 7, 2026: Judge Patricia D. Barksdale’s Order
As POST Wrestling reported last month, All Elite Wrestling and Tony Khan filed a petition in federal court to require Ryan Nemeth to litigate their ongoing dispute in an arbitration forum in Florida, as opposed to an arbitration forum in California.
The underlying dispute between AEW and Nemeth relates to Nemeth’s February 2025 lawsuit alleging, among other claims, that he was blacklisted from the wrestling industry after a confrontation with Phil Brooks (CM Punk). (It’s worth noting Nemeth has performed on television for TNA throughout 2025 and 2026, including this past Thursday.) In April 2025, AEW and Nemeth agreed to move the dispute into arbitration. AEW cited a provision in his wrestler contract with AEW, requiring any disputes to be resolved in private arbitration. I reported on these developments for POST Wrestling at the time, when it was moved to arbitration and before that when the case was filed by Nemeth.
But more than a year later there are still disagreements over just where arbitration will take place. AEW again points to Nemeth’s wrestler contract, which they say requires arbitration in Florida with AEW’s chosen arbitration mediator, JAMS. Nemeth, who resides in California, is apparently attempting to arbitrate in his home state. So AEW went back to federal court in Florida last month, asking the court to order that the dispute be mediated in arbitration in Florida, not any other state. Nemeth has yet to submit a filing in this new action. According to AEW, Nemeth has claimed to JAMS that California’s labor laws void the agreement to arbitrate in Florida. AEW argues that California law cannot apply, again citing the contract. AEW is also asking the court to rule that arbitration should proceed under general arbitration standards, rather than those applicable to employment. AEW says that’s because Nemeth was a contractor and not an employee, so employment standards aren’t appropriate.
After AEW filed to seal Nemeth’s three AEW contracts, I argued that the public has a presumptive right to court records. If AEW is going to file the contracts as exhibits in public court, which it seeming must to get the relief the company wants, then the public has a right to view the contracts so the public can evaluate the fairness of the legal action that unfolds. Wrestler contract issues have also long been a significant matter of public concern for the wrestling industry.
I argued AEW has not shown why the contracts cannot be viewed publicly and has only made general claims about the harm that would be caused if the public could view the contracts, which isn’t enough to justify sealing a court record from public view. AEW has already quoted from portions of the contracts in its petition, which shows that some portions of the contracts can be made viewable to the public, I argued. Read AEW’s and my arguments and the judge’s ruling more fully in the filings linked above.