Barrous et al v. BP P.L.C. et al

Filing 159

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part 99 , 109 Motion to File Under Seal.(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

MARIA BARROUS, an individual and as
Trustee of the Barrous Living Trust,
DEMETROIS BARROUS, an individual, dba
Jimmy’s Restaurant,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BP P.L.C., BP EXPLORATION AND OIL,
INC., BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA,
INC., BP CORPORATION NORTH
AMERICA, INC., CONOCOPHILLIPS
COMPANY and DOES 1-20, inclusive,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 10-CV-02944-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND
DENYING-IN-PART MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

Now before the Court is Defendants’ administrative motion to file certain documents under
seal, ECF No. 109.
Defendants’ motion seeks to seal Exhibits H-L to the declaration of Steve Ellenberg, ECF

20

No. 97, on the basis that all of the exhibits have been marked “confidential” pursuant to the Court’s

21

protective order, ECF No. 69. Defendants argue that Exhibits H and I contain confidential and

22

sensitive business information and that Exhibits I-L are confidential settlement communications.

23

The Court has reviewed the documents and rules as follows.

24

Exhibit H contains the “Agreement for the Purchase and Sale of Assets Between BP

25

Exploration & Oil Inc. and Tosco Corporation,” dated June 1994. Although the document is

26

marked “Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only,” Defendants have redesignated them as

27

“confidential.” The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the document is not confidential in its

28

entirety, but agrees with Defendants that the financial terms of the agreement are confidential. The
1
Case No.: 10-CV-02944-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

1

Court therefore orders the parties to meet and confer and determine which parts of the agreement

2

are confidential. Plaintiffs will then file a redacted version on ECF and file the unredacted version

3

under seal by October 4, 2011.

4

Exhibit I contains “Schedule O, Environmental Provisional” which governs the liability of

5

BP Products and COP for environmental issues on the properties sold pursuant to the 1994

6

Agreement. The Court finds that this document is a confidential settlement agreement, and

7

therefore GRANTS Defendants’ motion with regard to Exhibit I.

8
9

Exhibit J contains a letter from Scott Hootoon (BP Oil Company) to David Camille (Tosco)
dated December 14, 2011, which, according to Defendants, documents a dispute between BP

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Products and COP concerning environmental liability under Schedule O. Defendants contend this

11

letter is the initiating document for settlement communications, but there is no evidence in the

12

letter of an offer to settle the dispute; rather it appears to be a demand letter initiating the dispute

13

and seeking indemnification. The Court therefore DENIES the motion with respect to Exhibit J

14

and orders Plaintiffs to file this document on ECF.

15

Exhibit K-L are presentations allegedly made at a settlement meeting with a third-party

16

neutral. The Court agrees that these are confidential settlement discussions. Thus, the Court

17

GRANTS Defendants’ motion with regard to Exhibits K-L.

18

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

Dated: September 30, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No.: 10-CV-02944-LHK
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL