State of California v. Valero Energy Corporation et al

Filing 83

ORDER RE SEALING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER by Hon. William Alsup Re 81 Administrative Motion sealing.(whalc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2017)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

Plaintiff,

No. C 17-03786 WHA

v.
VALERO ENERGY CORPORATION,
VALERO ENERGY PARTNERS LP, and
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P.,

ORDER RE SEALING
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
ORDER

Defendants.
/

15
16

On August 23, an order denied plaintiff the State of California’s motion for a

17

preliminary injunction subject to certain conditions (Dkt. No. 79). That order was sealed to

18

give the parties an opportunity to object to the public disclosure of information contained

19

therein (see Dkt. No. 80).

20

Only defendant Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. has filed an objection seeking to

21

maintain any portion of the preliminary injunction order under seal. Specifically, Plains

22

requests that the following information be redacted: (1) the percentage of Chevron and BP

23

product piped through the Martinez terminal in 2015 and 2016, and (2) the remaining contract

24

term length of certain contracts for customers of the Martinez terminal. It argues, without

25

elaboration, that this information is confidential, and competitively sensitive (Dkt. No. 81 at 3).

26

Plains has not provided a compelling reason outweighing the public’s interest in

27

disclosure to maintain these portions of the order under seal. See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of

28

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809
F.3d 1092, 1102 (9th Cir.) (applying “compelling reasons” standard to preliminary injunction

1

motion that was “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case”). These are not the

2

sort of trade secrets or highly sensitive information that warrants sealing. Accordingly, Plains’

3

motion to maintain portions of the order under seal is DENIED. Nevertheless, the publicly filed

4

version of the preliminary injunction order will apply Plains’ proposed redactions until

5

FOURTEEN DAYS elapse and/or our court of appeals, upon prompt application of Plains, extends

6

the redactions.

7

Plains further observes that the preliminary injunction order discloses third-party

8

information, which may be subject to sealing. In particular, it notes that the order sets forth the

9

throughput capacities to the Kinder Morgan Service Area from Chevron’s proprietary pipeline
as well as other gathering lines controlled by Kinder Morgan, Inc., which information was

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

gathered from Chevron and Kinder Morgan as part of the investigation into this transaction.

12

For the time being, this information is redacted from the publicly filed version of the

13

preliminary injunction order. Plains SHALL SERVE all third parties whose information is

14

disclosed in the preliminary injunction order with this order and an unredacted copy of the order

15

regarding California’s motion for preliminary injunction by no later than TOMORROW, AUGUST

16

29 AT 5:00 P.M. Third parties shall file any objections they have to unsealing the redacted

17

portions of the preliminary injunction order by no later than AUGUST 31 AT 5:00 P.M. Any

18

such objections shall set forth in detail why sealing is warranted pursuant to Kamakana v. City

19

& Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006).

20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

Dated:

August 28, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2