Windward Aviation, Inc. et al v. Rolls-Royce Corporation et al

Filing 75

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SEAL AND DEFENDANT ROLLSROYCECORPORATIONS MOTION TO SEAL 71 ; 73 . Signed by JUDGE ALAN C KAY on 6/20/11. (eps) -- By Wednesday, June 22, 2011, Plaintiffs are directed to file under seal Exhibit Y to Plaintiffs 6/17/11 supplemental submission of facts and Exhibit A to Plaintiffs 5/31/11 opposition to Defendants motion to strike. The Clerk of the Court is directed to remove from the public record Exhibit A to Plaintiffs 5/31/11 opposition to D efendants motion to strike. Also by Wednesday, June 22, 2011, Defendant is directed to file under seal Exhibits F and G to Defendants 6/17/11 supplemental statement of facts CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

WINDWARD AVIATION, INC.;
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA; ARCH
INSURANCE CO.; STARNET INSURANCE
CO.; NATIONAL FIRE AND MARINE
INSURANCE CO.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
ROLLS-ROYCE CORPORATION; ROLLS- )
ROYCE ENGINE SERVICES-OAKLAND,
)
INC.; JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES )
1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10; DOE )
CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES )
)
1-10,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Civ. No. 10-00542 ACK-BMK

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL AND DEFENDANT ROLLSROYCE CORPORATION’S MOTION TO SEAL
On June 17, 2011, Windward Aviation, Inc.; National
Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA; Arch Insurance
Co.; Starnet Insurance Co.; and National Fire and Marine
Insurance Co. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a “Motion for
Leave to File Exhibit ‘Y’ to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Submission
of Facts in Opposition to Defendants Rolls-Royce Corporation and
Rolls-Royce Engine Services-Oakland, Inc.’s Motion for Summary
Judgment Under Seal.”

On the same day, Defendant Rolls-Royce

Corporation filed an “Ex Parte Motion to Seal Exhibits F and G to
Defendants’ Supplemental Statement of Facts.”
Having reviewed the parties’ motions to seal,
memoranda, declarations, and exhibit, as well as the proposed
sealed submissions, the Court finds that the parties have met the
“compelling reasons” standard outlined in Kamakana v. City and
County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), and discussed
in this Court’s Order dated May 25, 2011.

In particular, the

parties have articulated “compelling reasons” supported by
specific facts demonstrating why each of the documents in
question should be sealed.

See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.

Moreover, in determining whether these documents should be
sealed, the Court has “‘conscientiously balance[d] the competing
interests’” of the public and those of Defendant.

Id. at 1179.

Exhibit Y to Plaintiffs’ 6/17/11 supplemental
submission of facts, Exhibits F and G to Defendants’ 6/17/11
supplemental statement of facts, and Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’
5/31/11 opposition to Defendants’ motion to strike warrant
sealing because these records contain: (1) trade secrets and
highly confidential business information; and/or (2) technical
data and information whose export is restricted by export control
laws; and/or (3) information whose release is restricted by
United States Army regulations.

Defendants’ Ex Parte Motion to

Seal at 7-11; Sleeman Decl. at ¶ 5; Fukunaga Decl. at ¶¶ 2-5; see

2

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)
(recognizing that records containing “sources of business
information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”
constitute an exception to the general right to inspect judicial
records); McDonnell v. Southwest Airlines Co., 292 F. App’x 679
(9th Cir. 2008) (affirming the sealing of documents that
“contain[ed] trade secrets and confidential procedures and
communications geared toward investigating the cause of [an]
airline crash” because, “due to their confidential and sensitive
nature, public disclosure of the documents could result in
improper use”); Jones v. Avidyne Corp., No. CV 06-1656-ST., 2010
WL 3829215, at *1 (D. Or. Sep. 24, 2010) (“The redacted portions
of the transcript contain technical details of Avidyne’s research
into remedial product designs.

In its motion to redact, Avidyne

asserted that it would be harmed in the competitive marketplace
if these details were publicly disclosed.

This is a compelling

reason to restrict public access to those limited portions of the
transcript . . . .”); cf. Melvin v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 236
(1988) (discussing the protection of export controlled technical
data).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ motions to
seal.

By Wednesday, June 22, 2011, Plaintiffs are directed to

file under seal Exhibit Y to Plaintiffs’ 6/17/11 supplemental
submission of facts and Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ 5/31/11

3

opposition to Defendants’ motion to strike.

The Clerk of the

Court is directed to remove from the public record Exhibit A to
Plaintiffs’ 5/31/11 opposition to Defendants’ motion to strike.
Also by Wednesday, June 22, 2011, Defendant is directed to file
under seal Exhibits F and G to Defendants’ 6/17/11 supplemental
statement of facts.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

Honolulu, Hawai‘i, June 20, 2011.

________________________________
Alan C. Kay
Sr. United States District Judge

Windward Aviation Inc. et al. v. Rolls-Royce Corporation et al., Civ. No.
10-00542 ACK-BMK, Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal and Defendant
Rolls-Royce Corporation’s Motion to Seal.

4