State of California v. Valero Energy Corporation et al
Filing
106
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL by Judge Judge William Alsup granting in part and denying in part 36 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
No. C 17-03786 WHA
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
v.
VALERO ENERGY CORPORATION,
VALERO ENERGY PARTNERS LP, and
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P.,
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO SEAL
Defendants.
/
Third-party AOT Energy Americas LLC moves to file under seal certain documents
17
related to its objections to the Court’s order requiring plaintiff, the State of California, to
18
produce documents to defendants Valero Energy Corporation, Valero Energy Partners LP, and
19
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (Dkt. No. 36).
20
In this circuit, courts start with a “strong presumption in favor of access” when deciding
21
whether to seal records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.
22
2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). To
23
seal judicial records in connection with a dispositive motion, the moving party must provide
24
“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings,” which outweigh the public’s
25
interest in disclosure. See id. at 1178–79 (quotations and citations omitted). A particularized
26
showing of “good cause” under F.R.C.P. 26(c), however, suffices to warrant sealing of judicial
27
records in connection with a non-dispositive motion. Id. at 1179–80.
28
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
1
good cause standard. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th
2
Cir.). The following constitutes the Court’s rulings on the parties’ administrative motion:
3
DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
RULING
4
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. 363). 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.
5
6
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
25
Dated:
September 26, 2017.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?