Martinez et al v. Aero Caribbean et al

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL by Hon. William Alsup denying 35 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

LORENZO MENDOZA MARTINEZ, ELIEZER
MENDOZA MARTINEZ, ELIU MENDOZA, and
GLORIA MARTINEZ MONTES,

12
13
14

Plaintiffs,

No. C 11-03194 WHA

ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO SEAL

v.

15

AERO CARIBBEAN, EMPRESA
AEROCARIBBEAN S.A., CUBANA DE
AVIACION S.A., and ATR,

16

Defendants.

17

/

18

On April 6, 2012, plaintiffs Lorenzo Mendoza Martinez, Eliu Mendoza, Eliezer Mendoza

19

Martinez, and Gloria Martinez Montes, filed an administrative motion to file their memorandum

20

and specified exhibits in support of their supplemental opposition to defendant’s motion to

21

dismiss under seal (Dkt. No. 35). The aforementioned documents are either documents

22

designated as confidential by defendant GIE Avions de Transport Regional (“ATR”) or

23

documents discussing documents designated as confidential by defendant ATR.

24

Defendant ATR filed a responsive declaration stating that Exhibits F, G, H, and K to the

25

Malloy declaration in support of plaintiffs’ supplemental opposition to defendant’s motion to

26

dismiss may be unsealed. Defendant also indicated that the portions of Exhibit B to the Malloy

27

declaration, which were designated as confidential, may be unsealed. Additionally, defendant

28

has stated that plaintiffs’ redacted supplemental opposition may be filed without redactions.

1

Defendant ATR seeks to seal only Exhibits I, J, and L. Compelling reasons are required

2

to seal documents used in dispositive motions. See Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179

3

(9th Cir. 2006).

4

There is not a compelling reason to seal Exhibits I and J. Exhibit I is the sale and

5

purchase contract between defendant ATR and Air Lease Corporation. Exhibit J is the heads of

6

agreement between Air Lease Corporation and ATR. Defendant ATR contends that the exhibits

7

should be sealed because “they contain what ATR believes to be sensitive confidential and

8

proprietary information that, if publicly released, could significantly and negatively impact

9

ATR’s competitive position in the aircraft marketplace” (Dkt. No. 42 at 2). Additionally,
defendant states that the documents were “part of an overall contract between defendant ATR

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

and Air Lease Corporation for the sale and purchase of ATR aircraft, which itself has a

12

confidentiality provision governing its terms” (id. at 3). Defendant has not provided a

13

compelling reason to seal this information at the motion to dismiss stage.

14

There is not a compelling reason to seal Exhibit L, which is a spreadsheet prepared by

15

defendant ATR containing information related to its aircraft component parts suppliers from

16

California. The document includes the total amount in Euros that each listed supplier received

17

for component parts purchased in 2011 by ATR. Defendant ATR seeks to seal this document

18

because it “believes that release of this highly sensitive financial information would significantly

19

and negatively impact ATR’s competitive position in the aircraft marketplace” (ibid.) This is not

20

a compelling reason to seal this information at the motion to dismiss stage.

21

The motion to seal is DENIED. All documents shall be filed in the public record.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: April 18, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2