DFS Guam v. AB Won Pat Intl Airport Authority

Opinion

l

v •

l

'FILED

SUPERIOR COURT

1 OF GUAM 2 ZUIB JAN 10 PH 3: 08 3 CLE F COURT 4

5 6 7

8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 9

10 DFS GUAM L.p., CIVIL CASE NO.: CV0307-16

11 plaintiff, 12 DECISION AND ORDER vs. (Plaintiff's Motion to Enter Judgment and 13 to Dismiss Remaining Counts)

THE A.B. WON PAT INTERNATIONAL 14 AIRPORT AUTHORITY, GUAM, 15 Defendant.

16

17 INTRODUCTION 18 This matter came before the honorable Anita A. Sukola on November 9, 2017 on DFS

19 Guam L.P.'s ("Plaintiff') Motion to Enter Judgment and to Dismiss Remaining Counts. Attorney

i

20 G. Patrick Civille appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff. Attorney Genevieve P. Rapadas appeared on

21 behalf of the A.B. Won Pat International Airport Authority ("Defendant"). Upon review of the 22 written and oral arguments, and legal authorities presented by the Parties, the Court issues the 23 instant Decision and Order GRANTING in part Plaintiffs Motion to Enter Judgment and 24 Dismiss Remaining Counts. The Court hereby ORDERS all claims in the First Amended 25 Complaint tiled on June 9, 2016, except those portions of the HM, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Claims 26 discussed herein, be DISMISSED with prejudice. A Judgment shall issue simultaneous to this 27 Decision and Order.

28 ORIGINAL CV0307-16 DFS Guam L.P, v. The A.B. Won Pat International Airport Authority Page l of ll Decision and Order Re: Pi's Mot. Enter I. and Dismiss Remaining Counts

IlllwI H

I

1 BACKGROUND 2 The factual background of this case was previously laid out by the Court in a Decision and 3 Order on Plaintiff's and Defendant's motions for partial and for summary judgment respectively.

4 However, for the purpose of clarity, the facts necessary to the instant Decision and Order are as 5 follows. During litigation regarding procurement-related protests before the Superior Court, 6 Plaintiff submitted requests to Defendant on July 7, 2015, August 12, 2015, and March 8, 2016, as 7 allowed by the Sunshine Reform Act of 1999 ("Sunshine Act"). Decision and Order 2 (June 26, 8 2017). The requests sought minutes, transcripts, and recordings from Meetings of Defendant's 9 Board of Directors and between members of Defendant's Board of Directors and the Board's

10 Legal Counsel on various dates ding the period from 2012 through 2016. at 4-5 .

11 Plaintiff subsequently tiled the First Amended Complaint in this action on June 9, 2016.

12 Plaintiff alleged the Defendant and several members of the Defendant's Board of Directors 13 violated the Open Government Law ("OGL") by infer alia, "failing to make and maintain in 14 accordance with the requirements of law, minutes and verbatim recorded and written transcripts of 15 certain of [Defendant's] Board's executive and closed sessions and meetings during the period 16 from July 11, 2012 Mouth January 28, 2016." First Am. Con pl. 1 3. The First Amended 17 Complaint alternatively alleged "that if such records exist, [Defendant or Defendant's] Board ...

18 violated the OGL and Sunshine Act by failing to make these documents publicly available, as 19 required by law, and refusing to produce these documents in response to DFS's July 7, 2015, 20 August 12, 2015, and March 8, 2016 requests under the Sunshine Act." ld, 21 Plaintiff tiled a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Defendant filed a Motion for 22 Summary Judgment on March 8, 2017. The Court issued a Decision and Order disposing of both 23 motions on June 26, 2017. In the Decision and Order, the Court found several facts undisputed.

24 The Court found that the Defendant's Board of Directors convened several executive sessions, 25 which were closed to the public, during the period from July 1, 2012 through August 12, 2014;

26 Decision and Order 3 (June 26, 2017). The Court also found that certain individual members of 27 28

CV0307-16 DFS Guam L.P. v. The A.B. Won Pat International Airport Authority Page 2 of ll Decision and Order Re: Pl's Mot. Enter J. and Dismiss Remaining Counts

uI

1 Defendant's Board of Directors met with the Board's Legal Counsel at different times on March 2 27, 2013, April 5, 2013, April 8, 2013, and April 9, 2013. Decision and Order 4 (June 26, 2017). 3 The Court also noted Defendant filed a Petition to Seal certain transcripts of the Executive 4 Sessions of Defendant's Board of Directors on August 6, 2015. ii at 5. A Judge of the Superior 5 Court granted the Petition which effectively sealed transcripts of executive sessions held during 6 the period between July 11, 2012 arid January 29, 2015. On August 31, 2015, the same Court 7 expanded the Sealing Order to include transcripts of executive sessions of Defendant's Board of 8 Directors held on February 23, 2015 and April 9, 2015. Q, at 6. 9 Notwithstanding the Sealing Order, in the June 26, 2017 Decision and Order, this Court 10 found Defendant violated "Section 10103 of the Sunshine Act and Section 8111 of the OGL by 11 failing to disclose public documents in response to Plaintiffs July 7, 2015 Sunshine Request." 12 at 12. This Court found the transcripts of the Executive Sessions held dining meetings of 13 Defendant's Board of Directors were public documents within the meaning of the OGL. at 11- 14 12. The Court reasoned that at the time Plaintiff submitted the July 7, 2015 request to Defendant 15 under the Sunshine Act, there was no seeding order in place, and the six-month statutory sealing 16 period had lapsed, for the transcripts of the closed executive sessions held during Board Meetings 17 in 2012, 2013, and 2014. Thus this Court granted summary judgment on Plaintiff's Fifth and 18 Ninth Causes of Action for Declaratory Relief, but "only with respect to the missing session 19 transcripts for the closed executive sessions held in 2012, 2013, and 2014." Ii Plaintiffs Fifth and 20 Ninth Causes of Action sought declaratory relief against Defendant related to alleged violations of 21 the Sunshine Act and the OGL. This Court concluded there was no genuine dispute as to a material 22 fact that Defendant failed to disclose transcripts of the closed executive transcripts held in 2012, 23 2013, and 2014, and that such failure constituted a violation of the OGL since the Court found the 24 closed session transcripts were public documents and were not sealed until August 13, 2015. 25 However, in the June 26, 2017 Decision and Order the Court also concluded the transcripts 26 sought in the July 7, 2015 Sunshine Request were no longer considered public documents within 27 the meaning of the OGL once the Sealing Order was entered on August 13, 2015. Decision and 28

CV0307-16 DFS Guam L.P. v. The A.B. W on Pat International Airport Authority Page 3 of l l Decision and Order Re: PTs Mot. Enter J. and Dismiss RemainingCounts 1 Order 13 (June 26, 2017). Thus, the Court denied summary judgment on Plaintiffs Sixth and 2 Tenth Causes of Action for injunctive relief. The Court found that Plaintiff was not entitled to

3 summary judgment on the requests for injunctive relief because "the Court [could not] compel 4 disclosure of documents that are currently under seal pursuant to another court's order." Q 5 According to documents filed by Plaintiff, after this Court entered the June 26, 2017 6 Decision and Order, the August 13, 2015 Sealing Order which sealed the 2012-2014 Transcripts 7 expired on September 14, 2017. Civille Decl. in Supp. Mot. Enter J. and Dismiss Remaining 8 Counts 'I 3 (Oct. 17, 2017). Further, Defendant filed a motion to renew the Seal Order for certain 9 transcripts, from April 25, 2013 through 2014 except for transcripts for meetings held on June 27, 10 2013 and July 31, 2014. Q The motion to extend the seal was pending at the time the instant 11 motion was filed. Q at 12. Thus effectively, the transcripts for the meetings from April 25, 2013 12 through 2014 remain under seal except for transcripts from the meetings held on June 27, 2013 and 13 July 31, 2014. PTs Mot. Enter J. and Dismiss Remaining Counts 3 at n. 1. 14 On October 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Enter Judgment and Dismiss 15 Remaining Counts. Plaintiff also filed a Proposed Final Judgment which reads:

16 "LThe Court's June 26, 2017 Decision and Order shall constitute the Court's "written Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law" as required by 5 GCA § 17 8115(d). 18 2. Final Judgment is entered in favor of DFS Guam L.P. ("DFS") and against the 19 A.B.W on Pat Intemational Airport Authority, Guam ("GIAA") on DFS's Fifth and Ninth Causes of Action in DFS's First Amended Complaint, filed June 9, 2016 20 ("FAC"), with respect to the transcripts of executive or closed sessions of GIAA's Board in 2012, 2013 and 2014 (the "2012-2014 Transcripts").

21

22 3. GIAA violated the Guam Open Government Law, 5 GCA §§ 8103(a), 8111(c) & (c)(3) & (c)(7), and the Sunshine Reform Act of 1999, 5 GCA § 10103(a) and (c), 23 by failing to provide DFS with the "2012-2014 Transcripts," as requested by DFS in DFS's July 7, 2015 Sunshine Act request to GIAA.

24

25 4. Final Judgment is entered in favor of GIAA and against DFS on Sixth and Tenth Causes of Action with respect to the portion of the 2012-2014 Transcripts 26 consisting of the transcripts for meetings from April 25, 2013 through 2014, other than the transcripts for the executive session meetings held on June 27, 2013 and 27 July 31, 2013 ("2013-2014 Remauining Transcripts"). 28

CV0307-16 DFS Guam L.P. v. The A.B. Won Pat International Airport Authority Page 4 of l l Decision and Order Re: PTs Mot. Enter J. and Dismiss Remaining Counts 1 5. All claims in the FAC other than the Fifth and Ninth Causes of Action with respect to the 2012-2014 Transcripts and the Sixth and Tenth Causes of Action with 2 respect to the 2013-2014 Remaining Transcripts are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

3

4 6. The Court shall maintain Jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter for a period of one year from the date of entry of judgment during which GIAA shall 5 report in writing twice annually to the Court of its compliance with the Open Government Law, in accordance with 5 GCA § 8115(t)."

6

7 Civille Decl. in Supp. of Mot. Ex. G. Defendant tiled an Opposition to the Motion on October 31, 8 and Plaintiff tiled a Reply on November 6, 2017. The Court held a hearing on the Motion and took 9 the matter under advisement on November 9, 2017. 10 DISCUSSION 11 In the Memorandum in Support of the Motion, Plaintiff stated that the Parties attempted to 12 stipulate to a final judgment to expedite an appeal, but "[b]ecause [Defendant] refuses to stipulate

13 to a termination of this action without extracting one sided concessions from [Plaintiff, Plaintiff]

as

14 respectfully requests the Court to grant this motion ... • Pl's Mot. Enter J. and Dismiss

15 Remaining Counts 4 (Oct. 17, 2017). Defendant opposes the proposed form of final judgment. 16 However, Defendant stated in the Opposition, "GIAA does not oppose DFS's motion to dismiss 17 with prejudice the remaining counts pursuant to Rule 41 of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure 18 ("GRCP")." Def's Opp'n 1 (Oct. 31, 2017). 19 Rule 41 provides " . an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiffs instance save upon 20 order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper." Guam R. Civ. P. 21 41 (2014). The Parties agree that those claims in the First Amended Complaint not addressed by 22 this Decision and Order, or those portions of the Court's June 26, 2017 Decision and Order on 23 Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, should be dismissed with prejudice. See PTs 24 Mot. Enter J. and Dismiss Remaining Counts 3, Def's Opp'n l, 5. Thus, the Court hereby 25 ORDERS all claims in the First Amended Complaint tiled on June 9, 2016, except those portions 26 of the Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Claims discussed herein, be DISMISSED with prejudice, 27 pursuant to Rule 41 of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure. 28

CV0307-16 DFS Guam L.P. v. The A.B. Won Pat International Airport Authority Page 5 of l l Decision and Order Re: PTs Mot. Enter J. and Dismiss Remaining Counts

H ll l l

1 Moving on to the language in the proposed judgment submitted by the Plaintiff, the Court 2 notes the Defendant's Opposition does not oppose the inclusion of the language in Paragraphs 3 One, Two, and Six of the Proposed Final Judgment in the Court's Final Judgment. Thus the Court 4 will incorporate the language in Paragraphs One, Two, and Six, into its Final Judgment. Further, 5 Counsel for both Parties have represented to the Court that the motivation for the request to enter 6 judgment is that both Parties intend to appeal pardons of the Court's June 26, 2017 Decision and 7 Order on the Motions for Partial and for Suininary Judgment. Therefore, the Court will first lay out 8 the law which governs the Court's power to enter judgment in a civil action. The Court will then 9 address each disputed paragraph of the Proposed Final Judgment. Finally, the Court will issue a 10 judgment simultaneous to this Decision and Order that comports with the analysis herein. 11 Plaintiff brings this action under various provisions of the OGL and Sunshine Act. HI the 12 context of claims addressed in the June 26, 2017 Decision and Order specifically, the Fifth and 13 Ninth Claims in the First Amended Complaint seek declaratory relief, while the Sixth and Tenth 14 Claims seek injunctive relief. The OGL provides that any person may bring an action by inter alia 15 injunction or declaratory relief to prevent a violation of the OGL by an agency or to determine the 16 applicability of the OGL to actions of an agency. 5 GCA § 8115(c) (2017). A 'Declaratory 17 Judgment' is defined as "a binding adjudication that establishes the rights and other legal relations 18 of the parties without providing for or ordering enforcement." Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 19 2014). Relief that is 'injunctive,' has "the quality of directing, or ordering, of, relating to, or 20 involving an injunction." L, 21 Guam's statute conferring appellate jurisdiction in civil matters originated in the California 22 Code of Civil Procedure, Dep't of Revenue and Taxation v. Civil Service Cornm'n, 2007 Guam 17 23 *I 14, and provides "[a]ppellate review to the Supreme Court shall be available only upon the 24 rendition of final judgment in the Superior Court from which appeal or application for review is 25 taken." 7 GCA § 3108(a) (2017). The designation of a document filed by the Court as a 'judgment' 26 is not conclusive, rather the "substance and effect of the judgment" determines its finality. Dep't of 27 Revenue and Taxation, 2007 Guam 17 at 'I 15 (citing In re Los Angeles Countv Pioneer Soc'v v. 28

CV0307-16 DFS Guam L.P. v. The A.B. Won Pat International Airport Authority Page 6 of ll Decision and Order Re: PTs Mot. Enter J. and Dismiss Remaining Counts

ml u l

1 Hist. Soc'v of S. Calif., 257 P.2d 1, 4 (Cd. 1953)) (internal quotations omitted). A judgment is 2 "final when it terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits of the case, and leaves 3 nothing to be done but to enforce, by execution, what has been determined."Depot of Revenue and 4 Taxation,2007 Guam 17 at q 15 (citingSullivan v. Delta Air Lines. Inc., 935 P.2d 781, 791 (cal. 5 1997) (internal quotations omitted);see also Lvnn v. Goss,123 P.2d 11, 17 (Cad. 1942) ("... [a]s a 6 general test, which must be adapted to the particular circumstances of the individual case, it may 7 be said that where no issue is left for future consideration except the fact of compliance or 8 noncompliance with the terms of the first decree, that decree is final, but where anything further in 9 the nature of judicial action on the part of the court is essential to the final determination of the 10 rights of the parties, the decree is interlocutory")). 11 The Guam Rules of Civil Procedure similarly provide that judgment, as used in the Rules, 12 "includes a decree and any order from which an appeal lies." Guam R. Civ. P. 54(a) (2014). Rule 13 58 provides that every judgment "must be set forth on a separate document ...." Guam R. Civ. P. 14 58. Guam's Rule 58 is identical to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, Guam 15 Law, similar to Federal Law, requires strict adherence to the 'separate document rule.' See 16 Merchant v. Nan vo Realtv. Inc.,1997 Guam 16 *I 15. The Supreme Court of Guam has reasoned a 17 separate document is cddcd because the document ensures what is addressed on appeal is the trial 18 court's final determination and also to give parties notice of the time to appeal. Q, at <1 14. To 19 comply with Rule 58, a judgment "must set forth the relief to which the prevailing party is entitled 20 or the fact that the plaintiff has been denied all relief. It should not incorporate some other 21 document or contain legal reasoning." App'n of Depot of Health and Social Services for 22 Administrative Inspection and Search Warrant of Wise Owl Animal Hospital,2017 Guam 15 'I 17 23 (citingRevIblatt v. Denton,812 F.2d 1042, 1044 (7th Cir. l987)). 24 From the language of the applicable statutes, rules, and relevant case law, the Court finds 25 that a judgment is required to be a fined and unambiguous determination of the relief granted or 26 denied a party. The judgment must substantively end litigation in the triad court. Thus, once a 27 judgment is entered, to be final, there must be no action fuMet required of the Court, except 'to 28

CV0307-16 DFS Guam L.P. v. The A.B. Won Pat International Airport Authority Page 7 of ll Decision and Order Re: PTs Mot. Enter J. and Dismiss Remaining Counts

III

1 enforce, by execution, what has been detemlined." Therefore this Court will look to the substance 2 and effect of the disputed language in the proposed judgment. While the Court's analysis is broken 3 down by each disputed paragraph, the Court notes its analysis considers the Final Judgment in the 4 context of the several paragraphs when read together. 5 1. Paragraph Three

6 3. GIAA violated the Guam Open Government Law, 5 GCA §§ 8103(a), 8111(c) & 7 (c)(3) & (c)(7), and the Sunshine Reform Act of 1999, 5 GCA § 10103(a) and (c), by failing to provide DFS with the "2012-2014 Transcripts," as requested by DFS 8 in DFS's July 7, 2015 Sunshine Act request to GIAA.

9 Plaintiff argues Paragraph Three is consistent with the Court's June 26, 2017 Decision and 10 Order where the Court found "GIAA violated the Open Government Law and the Sunshine Act 11 with respect to the 2012-2014 Transcripts." PTs Mot. Enter J. and Dismiss Remaining Counts 6. 12 Plaintiff further argues Paragraph Three reflects the Court's grant of partial summary judgment on 13 Plaintiffs requests in the Fifth and Ninth claims in the First Amended Complaint for declaratory 14 relief. In opposition to the language, Defendant first argues that the Court made no finding with 15 regard to 5 GCA § 8103(a), and thus the reference to said section should be stricken. The 16 Defendant then argues Paragraph Three is redundant to Paragraph Two in the proposed judgment 17 and should be stricken entirely. 18 The Court agrees with Defendant's first argument. The Court made no finding related to 19 Defendant violating 5 GCA § 8103(a), thus the reference to such section should be stricken. 20 However, the Court does not agree with Defendant's second argument. The Court finds Paragraphs 21 Two and Three in the proposed judgment, when read together are not redundant. Paragraph Two 22 only lays out the specific portions of the claims in the First Amended Complaint that Plaintiff 23 prevailed on. Paragraph Three lays out the actual declaratory relief sought by Plaintiff in the First 24 Amended Complaint, that is, a declaration by the Court of the specific statutory provisions 25 Defendant violated. The Court thus finds instead of deletion of Paragraph Three, the more 26 appropriate solution is to combine Paragraphs Two and Three of the proposed judgment to read:

27 Final Judgment is entered in favor of DFS Guam L.P. ("DFS") and against the A.B.

W on Pat International Airport Authority, Guam ("GIAA") on DFS's Fifth and 28

CV0307_l6 DFS Guam L.P. v. The A.B. Won Pat International Airport Authority Page 8of ll Decision and Order Re: PTs Mot. Enter J. and Dismiss Remaining Counts 1 Ninth Causes of Action in DFS's First Amended Complaint, filed June 9, 2016 ("FAC"), only with respect to the transcripts of executive or closed sessions of the 2 GIAA Board in 2012, 2013 and 2014 (the "2012-2014 Transcripts"). Specifically, 3 GIAA violated the following provisions of the Guam Open Government Law, 5 GCA §§ 8111(c), (c)(3) & (c)(7), and the Sunshine Reform Act of 1999, 5 GCA § 4 l0103(a) and (c), by failing to provide DFS with the "2012-2014 Transcripts," as requested by DFS in DFS's July 7, 2015 Sunshine Act request to GIAA.

5

6 As discussed hereinabove, the OGL provides that any person may bring an action for 7 declaratory relief to prevent a violation of the OGL by an agency or to determine the applicability 8 of the OGL to actions of an agency. 5 GCA § 8115(c). The Court's using language of both 9 Paragraphs Two and Three in the judgment comports with the OGL and those statutes, rules and 10 the case law governing entering judgment discussed above. The combined language provides an 11 unambiguous detennination by dlis Court of what claims Plaintiff partially prevailed on. The 12 combined language also unambiguously indicates what statutory provisions the Court finds the 13 agency subject to the OGL violated. Finally, the combined language confers the precise 14 declaratory relief sought in the First Amended Complaint, and granted in the June 26, 2017 15 Decision and Order. The factual allegations in the Fifth and Ninth Claims in the First Amended 16 Complaint were sustained in part. Thus the Court found the Defendant violated provisions of the 17 OGL when Defendant failed to provide or otherwise make available the 2012-2014 Transcripts 18 requested in the July 7, 2015 Sunshine Act request. 19 II. Paragraph Four

20 4. Final Judgment is entered in favor of GIAA and against DFS on Sixth and Tenth Causes of Action with respect to the portion of the 2012-2014 Transcripts 21 consisting of the transcripts for meetings from April 25, 2013 through 2014, other than the transcripts for the executive session meetings held on June 27, 2013 and 22 July 31, 2013 ("2013-2014 Remaining Transcripts").

23

24 Plaintiff argues the Court denied DFS's motion for partial summary judgment on its Sixth 25 and Tenth Causes of Action because the Court determined that it could not compel the disclosure 26 of the 2012-2014 Transcripts that had been sealed by in SP0102-15. PTs Mot. Enter J. and Dismiss 27 Remaining Counts 7. Plaintiff argues that Judgment should thus be entered in Defendant's favor on 28

CV0307-16 DFS Guam L.P. v. The A.B. Won Pat International Airport Authority Page 9 of l l Decision and Order Re: PTs Mot. Enter J. and Dismiss Remaining Counts

II

1 the Sixth and Tenth Causes of Action. Defendant argues the Court ruled in neither party's favor 2 and thus the language "should be excluded from the final judgment ...." Def"s Opp'n 4. Instead, 3 Defendant argues these claims should be dismissed with prejudice with the other claims where 4 suimnary judgment was denied in the Court's June 26, 2017 Decision and Order. Li at 5. In Reply, 5 Plaintiff argues that not entering judgment in Defendant's favor would foreclose Plaintiffs ability 6 to appeal this Coult's denial of the injunctive relief sought by Plaintiff in the Sixth and Tenth 7 Causes of Action in the First Amended Complaint. PTs Reply to Def's Opp'n to Mot. Enter J. and 8 Dismiss Remaining Counts 4. 9 The Court agrees in part with both Parties. On the one hand, the Court declined to grant the 10 injunctive relief sought in the Sixth and Tenth Causes of Action in the First Amended Complaint. 11 In denying the requests for injunctive relief, the Court cited to, Bano v. Union Carbide Corp., 361 12 F.3d 696, 715 (ad Cir. 2004), for the proposition that "injunctive relief may be denied if there are 13 difficulties in enforcing an effective order." Thus the Court implied that if the Sealing Order was 14 not in place, the Court would have granted injunctive relief related to the subject matter of the 15 Court's grant of declaratory relief on the Fifth and Ninth Causes of Action where Plaintiff 16 prevailed in the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Had the Sealing Orders not been in place, 17 the Court, having found the 2012-2014 transcripts were public documents, would have ordered the 18 transcripts be turned over in response to the July 7, 2015 Sunshine Act request under the Sixth and 19 Tenth Causes of Action. Thus Plaintiff is correct that the relief requested was denied. However, 20 Defendant also did not prevail on the claims because the Court implied that the Sealing Order was 21 the only bar to the Court's grant of the injunctive relief sought. Thus the Court will only enter 22 judgment to the effect that the Plaintiffs claims for injunctive relief in the Sixth and Tenth Causes 23 of Action, related to the executive session transcripts subject to the OGL and Sunshine Act as 24 declared by this Court in granting partial summary judgment on the Fifth and Ninth Causes of 25 Action, is denied. The Judgment shall thus read as follows:

26 Final Judgment is entered against DFS with respect to the portion of the 2012-2014 Transcripts consisting of the transcripts for meetings from April 25, 2013 through 27 2014, other than the transcripts for the executive session meetings held on June 27, 28 2013 and July 31, 2013 ("2013-2014 Remaining Transcripts"), on DFS's request

CV0307-16 DFSGuamL.P. v. The A.B. Won Pat Intemationad AirportAuthority Page 10 of 11 Decision and OrderRe: PTsMot.EnterJ.and Dismiss Remaining Counts , »

1 for injunctive relief in the Sixth and Tenth Causes of Action in the First Amended Complaint. The requests for injunctive relief in the Sixth and Tenth Causes of 2 Action with respect to the portion of the 2012-2014 Transcripts consisting of the transcripts for m eetings from April 25, 2013 through 2014, other than the 3 transcripts for the executive session meetings held on June 27, 2013 and July 31, 4 2013 ("2013-2014 Remaining Transcripts") in the First Amended Complaint are hereby DE NI E D.

5

6 The Court finds the amended language enters the judgment necessary to facilitate an appeal of this 7 Court's ruling that any injunctive relief related to transcripts sealed by another Court should be 8 denied while such Sealing Order is in place.

9 III. ParagraphFive 10 5. All claims in the FAC other than the Fifth and Ninth Causes of Action with respect to the 2012-2014 Transcripts and the Sixth and Tenth Causes of Action with 11 respect to the 2013-2014 Remaining Transcripts are hereby dismissed with 12 prejudice.

13 The Court notes the dispute over the language in Paragraph Five relates to how this Court 14 addressed the Parties dispute over the language of Paragraph Four of the proposed judgment. Thus 15 having dispensed with the Sixth and Tenth Causes of Action separately in the judgment, the Court 16 finds the dispute over the language in Paragraph Five of the proposed judgment to be moot. The 17 language in the judgment shall be the language in the proposed judgment which dismisses all 18 claims except those portions of claims disposed of elsewhere in the judgment.

19 CONCLUSION 20 Thus, by a preponderance of the evidence and for the reasons stared herein, the Court 21 hereby GRANTS in part Plaintiff' s Motion to Enter Judgment and to Dismiss Remaining Counts.

22 Further, the Court hereby ORDERS all claims in the First Amended Complaint filed on June 9, 23 2016, except those portions of the Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Claims discussed herein, be 24 DISMISSED with prejudice. A Judgment shall issue simultaneous to this Decision and Order.

25 SO ORDERED this lb day of January, 2018. :="'°"*.:°"'"'° 26 i. £Q IH

27 The Honorable Anita A. Sukola " au.o@1~»`?'

f.21

28 Judge, Superior Court of Guam Jlrnlnl: : J

Imam WfliiUauladn

ii

CV0307-16DFSGuamL.P.v.TheA.B.WonPatIntemationdAirportAuthority Page 11 0 DecisionandOrderRe:PTsMot.EnterI.andDismissRemainingCounts