Filed: Sep. 26, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 26, 2017
Summary: ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Third-party AOT Energy Americas LLC moves to file under seal certain documents related to its objections to the Court's order requiring plaintiff, the State of California, to produce documents to defendants Valero Energy Corporation, Valero Energy Partners LP, and Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (Dkt. No. 36). In this circuit, courts start with a "strong presumption in favor of access" when deciding whether to seal
Summary: ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Third-party AOT Energy Americas LLC moves to file under seal certain documents related to its objections to the Court's order requiring plaintiff, the State of California, to produce documents to defendants Valero Energy Corporation, Valero Energy Partners LP, and Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (Dkt. No. 36). In this circuit, courts start with a "strong presumption in favor of access" when deciding whether to seal r..
More
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
Third-party AOT Energy Americas LLC moves to file under seal certain documents related to its objections to the Court's order requiring plaintiff, the State of California, to produce documents to defendants Valero Energy Corporation, Valero Energy Partners LP, and Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (Dkt. No. 36).
In this circuit, courts start with a "strong presumption in favor of access" when deciding whether to seal records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). To seal judicial records in connection with a dispositive motion, the moving party must provide "compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings," which outweigh the public's interest in disclosure. See id. at 1178-79 (quotations and citations omitted). A particularized showing of "good cause" under F.R.C.P. 26(c), however, suffices to warrant sealing of judicial records in connection with a non-dispositive motion. Id. at 1179-80.
The documents at issue here, which were produced in discovery subject to a protective order, and are the subject of a nondispositive motion. They therefore need only meet the lower good cause standard. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir.). The following constitutes the Court's rulings on the parties' administrative motion:
DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED RULING
Exhibit A Exhibit A is a declaration related to AOT's
trading strategies and leasing arrangements
with the Martinez Terminal (Dkt. Nos. 36-1 ¶
8; 36-2). AOT, however, attempts to file the
entire exhibit under seal in defiance of our
Civil Local Rule 79-5(b), which requires a
request to seal to be narrowly tailored. Much
of this declaration is innocuous and does not
support sealing. DENIED.
Exhibit B Exhibit B is a spreadsheet listing nearly 300
transactions between AOT and its customers
since 2012. The spreadsheets reveal the
prices and volumes of these transactions and
other sensitive business information such as
summaries of monthly revenue (Dkt. No. 36-3).
GRANTED.
Exhibit C Exhibit C contains responses to civil
investigative demands. Some of the
responses concern AOT trading strategies
and contract information. Much of the
document, however, contains lists of bates
stamp numbers and other non-sealable
material (Dkt. No. 36-3). AOT seeks to seal
the exhibit in its entirety. This fails to
comply with our Civil Local Rule 79-5(b),
which requires a request to seal to be
narrowly tailored. DENIED.
Exhibit D Exhibit D is comprised of lease agreements
between AOT and Plains, including pricing
and volume terms as well as all other fees
and storage terms between the companies
(Dkt. 36-4-36-9). GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
