State of California v. Valero Energy Corporation et al

Filing 87

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO UNSEAL by Hon. William Alsup granting 58 Motion to Unseal Document.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2017)

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

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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO UNSEAL

Defendants.
/

15
16

A July 10 order permitted plaintiff, the state of California, to file its complaint and

17

motion for a temporary restraining order under seal due to the time sensitive nature of the

18

proceeding to ensure that the state expeditiously served all documents on defendants (Dkt. No.

19

12). Those filings were sealed and remain inaccessible to the public.

20

California now brings this unopposed motion to unseal redacted versions of the

21

complaint, motion for temporary restraining order, and motion for preliminary injunction. The

22

documents, which they propose to file on the public docket redact confidential third-party

23

information. California has attached copies of the redacted motions, and served all third parties

24

who provided information to the FTC or the California Attorney General in the course of their

25

joint investigation into the underlying sale.

26

There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” when deciding whether to seal

27

records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing

28

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). When
determining whether to keep materials sealed, the Court must “conscientiously balance the

1

competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records

2

secret.” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016).

3

(citation omitted). “Sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive

4

standing” may constitute a compelling reason to keep a document sealed. Id.

5

Here, all sensitive third-party business information has been redacted from the relevant

6

documents, and California’s motion is not opposed by defendants. California’s unopposed

7

motion is GRANTED. California SHALL FILE redacted copies of the complaint, motion for

8

temporary restraining order, and motion for preliminary injunction as separate docket entries.

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated:

September 6, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2