Eggs 'N Things International Holdings PTE. Ltd. et al v. ENT Holdings LLC

Filing 58

ORDER TO UNSEAL 54 ORDER GRANTING PETITIONERS MOTION TO REMAND FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES: "On the basis of the foregoing, this Court HEREBY ORDERS that this Courts Order Granting Petitioners' Motion to Remand for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and for Attorneys' Fees, filed temporarily under seal on February 17, 2012, [dkt. no. 54,]be UNSEALED in its entirety. IT IS SO ORDERED." Signed by District JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYA SHI on February 29, 2012. (bbb, )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
EGGS ‘N THINGS INTERNATIONAL
HOLDINGS PTE. LTD., ET AL.,

)
)
)
Petitioners,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ENT HOLDINGS LLC,
)
)
)
Respondent.
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 11-00626 LEK-KSC

ORDER TO UNSEAL ORDER GRANTING PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO REMAND
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
On February 17, 2012, this Court filed its Order
Granting Petitioners’ Motion to Remand for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction and for Attorneys’ Fees (“Order”) temporarily under
seal.

[Dkt. no. 54.]

Also on that date, this Court filed an EO

stating that the Court was inclined to file publicly a copy of
the Order with limited redactions and to maintain the unredacted
version of the Order under seal (“EO”).

[Dkt. no. 53.]

The

Court directed the parties to meet and confer regarding what
portions of the Order should be redacted and to provide the Court
with proposed redactions.

The parties were unable to come to an

agreement on the proposed redactions.

On February 27, 2012,

Petitioners Eggs ‘N Things International Holdings Pte. Ltd., a
Singapore private limited company, Eggs ‘N Things Japan, K.K., a
Japan company, and Kouta Matsuda (collectively “Petitioners”)

filed a statement of position regarding the EO (“Petitioners’
Statement”).

Petitioners submitted their proposed redactions to

the Court with their courtesy copies of Petitioners’ Statement.
Also on February 27, 2012, Respondent ENT Holdings LLC, a Hawai`i
limited liability company (“ENT Hawaii”) filed its Submission of
Proposed Redacted Order.
DISCUSSION
There a strong presumption of public access to judicial
records and documents, which also extends to dispositive motions.
In order to seal a dispositive motion and its attachments or a
court order ruling on a dispositive motion, the party seeking to
seal the document must establish “compelling reasons” for sealing
all, or even a portion, of the document.

Kamakana v. City &

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006).
motion for remand is a dispositive motion.

A

Cf. PSC Indus.

Outsourcing, LP v. Burlington Ins. Co., Civ. No. 10–00751
ACK–BMK, 2011 WL 1793333, at *3 (D. Hawai`i May 10, 2011) (“This
Court treats a motion to remand as a dispositive motion,
requiring the issuance of a findings and recommendation by the
magistrate judge.” (citing Keown v. Tudor Ins. Co., 621 F. Supp.
2d 1025, 1029 (D. Haw. 2008); Sylvester v. Menu Foods, Inc., Civ.
No. 07–00409 ACK–KSC, 2007 WL 4291024, at *2 (D. Haw. Dec. 5,
2007)).

Thus, to the extent that the parties wish to seal any

portion of the Order, they must establish compelling reasons to

2

do so.

Some examples of compelling reasons include: compliance

with a Hawai`i Supreme Court ruling that decisions of the Medical
Claim Conciliation Panel are confidential; Parks v. Watkins,
Civil No. 11–00304 SOM/KSC, 2011 WL 3439936, at *2-3 (D. Hawai`i
Aug. 5, 2011); the need to protect confidential medical records;
Abbey v. Hawaii Emp’rs Mut. Ins. Co., 760 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1013
(D. Hawai`i 2010); and where the documents “might have become a
vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to
gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous
statements, or release trade secrets”; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
As pointed out in Petitioners’ Statement, “the primary
basis for the Magistrate Judge’s Orders permitting sealing
portions of the record and redactions thusfar has been an
agreement between the parties (i.e., Section 12 of the License
Agreement).”

[Petitioners’ Statement at 3.]

For example, in its

motion seeking to seal the petition to confirm the arbitration
awards, ENT Hawaii relied upon the provision in the parties’
License Agreement governing confidentiality of dispute resolution
proceedings.

[ENT Hawaii’s Ex Parte Motion to File Exh. “1” in

Supp. of the Notice of Removal Under Seal, Decl. of Philip R.
Brown, filed 10/18/11 (dkt. no. 2-1).1]

1

The fact that parties

The magistrate judge granted ENT Hawaii’s ex parte motion
on October 19, 2011. [Dkt. no. 7.]
3

agreed to the confidentiality of certain documents, however, does
not alone constitute a compelling reason.

See Kamakana, 447 F.3d

at 1182-83 & n.9 (affirming the magistrate judge’s refusal to
seal documents attached to summary judgment motions even though
the documents were sealed pursuant to the parties’ stipulated
protective order).
Having considered the record as a whole, the Court
CONCLUDES that there are no compelling reasons to seal any
portion of this Court’s Order.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the foregoing, this Court HEREBY ORDERS
that this Court’s Order Granting Petitioners’ Motion to Remand
for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and for Attorneys’ Fees,
filed temporarily under seal on February 17, 2012, [dkt. no. 54,]
be UNSEALED in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, February 29, 2012.

/S/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge

EGGS ‘N THINGS INT’L HOLDINGS PTE. LTD., ET AL. V. ENT HOLDINGS
LLC; CIVIL NO. 11-00626 LEK-KSC; ORDER TO UNSEAL ORDER GRANTING
PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO REMAND FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION AND FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

4