King Coal Chevrolet Co. v. General Motors Co. et al

Filing 36

ORDER re: 33 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE REGARDING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL by King Coal Chevrolet Co. to the Court's 31 Order; directing the defendants to file on the public record the redacted settlement agreement and release for which they no longer seek a sealing order; directing that the plaintiff file on the public record the redacted proposal attached to its 11/13/2012 supplemental response. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 11/20/2012. (cc: attys) (tmh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
KING COAL CHEVROLET CO.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:12-5992

GENERAL MOTORS CO. and
GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On November 2, 2012, the court granted an extension
until November 5, 2012, for any briefing relating to a motion to
seal previously filed herein.

On that date, the court received

the defendants' supplemental response on the matter.

The

defendants have since withdrawn their request to seal the two
documents in question, however, namely, (1) a redacted
settlement agreement and release, and (2) a proposal by Beckley
Buick/GMC & Hometown Automotive Group ("proposal") which are,
respectively, Exhibits A and D to the Declaration of Timothy D.
Hudgens filed in support of the defendants' response to the
plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.
The defendants assert that "Plaintiff plans to file
material to support maintaining the proposal under seal,

including an affidavit in support of filing the document under
seal."

(Supp. Resp. at 2).

At the court's direction, the

plaintiff was given leave until November 13, 2012, to file any
materials in support of sealing.

The court has now received the

plaintiff's supplemental response.
The supplemental response takes account of the law
governing the sealing of court documents.

It further offers

only limited redactions to the proposal.

It appears that the

only redactions to the 39-page document cover "private financial
information that is not relevant to the Court's consideration
of" the motion for a preliminary injunction.

(Supp. Resp. at 4;

see also id. ("The redacted information in the Proposal is
related to the sales and operations of Hometown Automotive Group
and Beckley GMC-Buick, two dealerships owned by the principals
of King Coal that are not involved in this litigation, as well
as the private financial information of King Coal’s principals.
The redacted information is highly confidential and proprietary
information that is commercially sensitive and may be used
against King Coal’s principals by those seeking to gain an
unfair business advantage.").
The court concludes that the redacted version of the
proposal permits any interested parties and the general public
2

to review and appreciate the impact of the proposal, if any, on
the proceedings herein.

In the event that any information

redacted from the proposal is subsequently used or relied upon
by the parties or the court in the course of adjudicating this
matter, it will be reassessed for disclosure purposes in light
of the dual rights of public access.
Based upon the foregoing discussion, it is ORDERED as
follows:
1.

That the defendants be, and they hereby are, directed to
file on the public record the redacted settlement
agreement and release for which they no longer seek a
sealing order; and

2.

That the plaintiff be, and it hereby is, directed to file
on the public record the redacted proposal attached to
its November 13, 2012, supplemental response.

The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this
written opinion and order to all counsel of record.
ENTER: November 20, 2012
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge

3