Kite Shipping LLC v. San Juan Navigation Corporation, No. 3:2011cv02694 - Document 84 (S.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 70 Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal; Denying 73 Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal; Denying 79 Joint Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. Within 10 days of the filing of this Order, the Parties shall electronically file all of the documents that are not to be sealed, as well as the redacted versions of Exhibits A and B. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 12/17/2012. (rlu)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Kite Shipping LLC v. San Juan Navigation Corporation Doc. 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 KITE SHIPPING LLC, 10 Case No. 11cv02694 BTM (WVG) Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PARTIES’ JOINT MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL v. 11 12 13 14 SAN JUAN NAVIGATION CORPORATION AND MANDARIN SHIPPING PTE LTD., Defendants. CARDINAL SHIPPING LLC, 15 16 17 18 19 Intervening Plaintiff, v. SAN JUAN NAVIGATION CORPORATION AND MANDARIN SHIPPING PTE LTD., Defendants. 20 21 Plaintiff KITE SHIPPING LLC, Intervening Plaintiff, CARDINAL SHIPPING LLC, and 22 Purported Garnishee MANDARIN FORTUNE SHIPPING PTE. LTD. (“MFS”) (hereinafter 23 collectively “the Parties”) have filed three joints motions for leave to file under seal, 24 collectively, the following documents: Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 25 order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s order vacating attachment (“Motion for 26 Reconsideration”), MFS’s opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration (“Opposition”), 27 Plaintiffs’ reply memorandum in further support of the Motion for Reconsideration (“Reply”), 28 and all accompanying declarations and exhibits. 1 11cv02694 BTM (WVG) Dockets.Justia.com 1 The first motion, filed on September 21, 2012, requests leave to file under seal: 1) the 2 Motion for Reconsideration, 2) the supporting declaration by George M. Chalos (“Chalos 3 Declaration”), and 3) all accompanying exhibits (Ex. A-H). This motion is GRANTED IN 4 PART and DENIED IN PART. 5 The second motion, filed on September 28, 2012, requests leave to file under seal: 6 1) the Opposition, as well as evidentiary objections to the Chalos Declaration, 2) the 7 supporting declarations by Zhang Lanshui (“Zhang Declaration”) and André M. Picciurro 8 (“Picciurro Declaration”), and 3) all accompanying exhibits (Ex. A-E). 9 DENIED. This motion is 10 The third motion, filed on October 12, 2012, requests leave to file under seal: 1) the 11 Reply, and responses to MFS’s evidentiary objections, 2) the supplemental declaration by 12 George M. Chalos (“Supplemental Chalos Declaration”), 3) the two accompanying exhibits 13 (Ex. A & B). This motion is DENIED. 14 15 I. GOVERNING LAW 16 The courts in this country recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public 17 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 18 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Unless a court record falls within the limited 19 category of records “traditionally kept secret,” a “strong presumption in favor of access is the 20 starting point.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 21 2006). While the Ninth Circuit has carved out an exception to the presumption of public 22 access where “a party attaches a sealed discovery document to a nondispositive motion,” 23 Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir.2002), 24 it has not yet ruled on whether discovery documents subject to a stipulated protective order 25 and attached to a nondispositive motion fall within this exception. See In re Roman Catholic 26 Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417 (9th Cir. 2011). 27 In general, however, while the “fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a 28 court order to the contrary, presumptively public,” a district court may override this 2 11cv02694 BTM (WVG) 1 presumption under Rule 26(c) where “good cause” is shown. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. 2 v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir.1999). According to Rule 26(c), “[t]he court 3 may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, 4 embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense ....“ Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). “Good 5 cause” requires a showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if the records are not 6 sealed. See Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210-11; Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 7 470, 475-76 (9th Cir.1992). 8 While the burden for showing good cause is lower than for the compelling reasons 9 standard, “‘[b]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated 10 reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.’” Beckman, 966 F.2d at 476. A blanket 11 protective order is not itself sufficient to show good cause for sealing particular documents. 12 See Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[A] 13 party seeking the protection of the court via a blanket protective order typically does not 14 make a ‘good cause’ showing required by Rule 26(c) with respect to any particular 15 document.”). See also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183; Beckman, 966 F.2d at 475-76. 16 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 The Parties seek to file under seal Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration, MFS’s 19 Opposition, Plaintiffs’ Reply, and all accompanying declarations and exhibits, based on the 20 Parties’ stipulated protective order and their assertions that the documents “reveal 21 commercially sensitive information.” Each motion will be discussed in turn. 22 23 A. First Motion (September 21, 2012) 24 25 1. Motion for Reconsideration 26 The Court DENIES the motion to seal as to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration, as 27 there is no commercially sensitive information in that document, and as noted above, the 28 stipulated protective order by itself is not sufficient. While the Motion for Reconsideration 3 11cv02694 BTM (WVG) 1 does discuss corporate structure and certain intercompany financial transactions, that does 2 not rise to the level of “business information that might harm a litigant's competitive 3 standing.” See Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). Business 4 information of competitive value that warrants sealing a document includes information such 5 as “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms,” see, e.g., In re 6 Electronic Arts, Inc., 298 Fed.Appx. 568 (9th Cir. 2008), and nothing of that nature was 7 included in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration. 8 9 2. Supporting Documents 10 The Court DENIES the motion to seal as to the Chalos Declaration in support of the 11 Motion for Reconsideration. The declaration does not contain any information of competitive 12 value or suggest any other reason why it should be sealed. 13 14 However, the Court GRANTS the motion to seal as to the following portions of the exhibits: 15 16 • Exhibit A - pp. 103-110 and pp. 136-142, which reveal pricing information in the context of specific contracts. 17 18 • Exhibit B - pp. 110-16, which reveal pricing information in the context of specific contracts. 19 The Court DENIES the motion to seal with respect to the remainder of the exhibits, 20 specifically, Exhibits A and B (except the portions identified above), and C-H. In particular, 21 the Court notes that most of these exhibits are already available to the public. And while 22 Exhibits G and H are documents created for the purposes of pretrial discovery, they do not 23 reveal any commercially sensitive information — indeed, Plaintiff cites these exhibits in its 24 motion precisely because they do not reveal such information. 25 26 B. Second Motion (September 28, 2012) 27 28 1. Opposition 4 11cv02694 BTM (WVG) 1 2 For similar reasons as described above regarding the Motion for Reconsideration (see II.a.1, supra), the Court DENIES the motion to seal as to MFS’s Opposition. 3 4 2. Supporting Documents 5 The Court DENIES the motion to seal as to all the supporting documents, including 6 the evidentiary objections, Zhang Declaration, Picciurro Declaration, and Exhibits A-E. None 7 of these documents contain any information of competitive value or suggest any other 8 reason why they should be sealed. 9 10 C. Third Motion (October 12, 2012) 11 12 1. Reply 13 Again, for similar reasons as stated with regard to the Motion for Reconsideration 14 (see II.a.1, supra), the Court DENIES the motion to seal as to the Reply. 15 16 2. Supporting Documents 17 The Court DENIES the motion to seal as to all the supporting documents, including 18 Plaintiffs’ responses to the evidentiary objections, the Supplemental Chalos Declaration, and 19 Exhibits A & B. None of these documents contain any information of competitive value or 20 suggest any other reason why they should be sealed. Indeed, the Court once again notes 21 that one of the supporting documents, Exhibit A, is a judicial opinion and thus already public 22 record. 23 24 III. CONCLUSION 25 The Parties’ Joint Motion for Leave to File Under Seal is GRANTED IN PART and 26 DENIED IN PART as detailed above. Within 10 days of the filing of this Order, the Parties 27 shall electronically file all of the documents that are not to be sealed, as well as the redacted 28 versions of Exhibits A and B. 5 11cv02694 BTM (WVG) 1 In the future, the Court expects that the parties will carefully narrow their requests to 2 file documents under seal. The requests in this instance were extremely overbroad, and the 3 Court would rather not spend its time reading through hundreds of pages of documents 4 when few of those pages meet the standard for sealing. Parties wishing to file documents 5 under seal, even under the lower “good cause” standard, must still show specific prejudice 6 or harm as to each document. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 DATED: December 17, 2012 10 11 BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 11cv02694 BTM (WVG)
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
