CALIFORNIA v. VALERO ENERGY CORPORATION, C 17-03786 WHA. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170911902
Visitors: 3
Filed: Sep. 08, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 08, 2017
Summary: ORDER RE THIRD-PARTY OBJECTIONS TO UNSEALING WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Third-party Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s September 7 notice observes that disclosure of its gathering line capacities could harm its customers who use those lines (Dkt. No. 91 at 2). These customers include Shell, Tesoro, Phillips 66, and NuStar. By SEPTEMBER 11 AT NOON, third-party Kinder Morgan SHALL SERVE the four third-party customers named above with redacted copies of the order regarding preliminary injunction.
Summary: ORDER RE THIRD-PARTY OBJECTIONS TO UNSEALING WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Third-party Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s September 7 notice observes that disclosure of its gathering line capacities could harm its customers who use those lines (Dkt. No. 91 at 2). These customers include Shell, Tesoro, Phillips 66, and NuStar. By SEPTEMBER 11 AT NOON, third-party Kinder Morgan SHALL SERVE the four third-party customers named above with redacted copies of the order regarding preliminary injunction. ..
More
ORDER RE THIRD-PARTY OBJECTIONS TO UNSEALING
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
Third-party Kinder Morgan, Inc.'s September 7 notice observes that disclosure of its gathering line capacities could harm its customers who use those lines (Dkt. No. 91 at 2). These customers include Shell, Tesoro, Phillips 66, and NuStar. By SEPTEMBER 11 AT NOON, third-party Kinder Morgan SHALL SERVE the four third-party customers named above with redacted copies of the order regarding preliminary injunction. The copy served on each party shall maintain all redactions of the publicly-filed order with the exception of the specific gathering line capacities associated with their terminal.
By Wednesday SEPTEMBER 13 AT NOON Shell, Tesoro, Phillips 66, and NuStar shall file any objections they have to unsealing the redacted portions of the preliminary injunction order related to the gathering line through which they access Concord Station. Any such objection shall specify exactly why disclosure of the redacted information will cause them competitive harm or reveal a trade secret such that there exists compelling reasons to maintain that information under seal pursuant to Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). Generalized objections will not suffice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
