1 THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 11
12 POLSKIE LINIE LOTNICZE LOT S.A., Case No. 2:21-CV-01449-RSM 13 Plaintiff, STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER 14 vs. FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL 15 THE BOEING COMPANY, 16 Defendant.
17 18 INTRODUCTION 19 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5(g)(2), Plaintiff POLSKIE LINIE LOTNICZE LOT S.A. 20 (“LOT”) and Defendant THE BOEING COMPANY (“Boeing,” and together with LOT, the 21 “Parties”) respectfully move this Court for leave to file Boeing’s Motion to Dismiss First 22 Amended Complaint (“Motion”) under seal because it references portions of the First Amended 23 Complaint that are already under seal and contains other excerpts from, and summaries of, 24 confidential documents containing sensitive contractual terms, the full disclosure of which will 25 result in harm to Boeing’s and its airline customers’ (which includes LOT) commercial interests. 26 1 RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2 The Court previously allowed the parties to file the First Amended Complaint, which also 3 quoted and summarized portions of the AGTA, under seal initially, with the parties proposed 4 limited redactions a week later. See ECF No. 48 (order granting joint request to seal limited to 5 those portions referring to the AGTA terms in the First Amended Complaint). 6 LCR 5(g)(3)(A) CERTIFICATION 7 The Parties have met and conferred and agree about the need for sealing. In accordance 8 with Local Civil Rule 5(g)(3)(A), the undersigned counsel certify that on December 8 and 9, 9 2022, the parties communicated about Boeing’s intention to include, in its Motion to be filed on 10 December 9, 2022, excerpts to and references from Boeing’s Aircraft General Terms Agreements 11 (“AGTAs”) with airline lessors that leased aircraft to LOT (and assigned some contractual AGTA 12 terms to LOT during the course of those lease agreements) and refers to portions of the First 13 Amended Complaint that are already under seal. 14 The Parties therefore agree that Boeing’s Motion will be filed under seal in the first 15 instance, subject to this Court’s approval. The Parties further agreed that, following Boeing’s 16 filing of the Motion under seal, as well as this accompanying Stipulation Motion and [Proposed] 17 Order: (1) the Parties would meet and confer to agree on appropriate redactions to the Motion; 18 and, subject to the Court granting this Stipulated Motion, (2) Boeing would file a redacted copy 19 of its Motion on the public docket within seven (7) days of filing its Motion. 20 The Parties are in further agreement that there is not another means of protecting the 21 commercially sensitive information in the AGTAs. 22 LCR 5(g)(3)(B) LEGAL STANDARD AND ARGUMENT 23 This Court applies a strong presumption favoring public access to court records that 24 ordinarily requires the moving party to provide compelling reasons to seal a document. 25 Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). But where the 26 underlying motion is non-dispositive, the showing required to rebut the presumption is far lower. -2- 1 See, e.g., In re Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 2 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that where the sealed records are “attached to a non-dispositive motion . 3 . . , the usual presumption of the public’s right of access is rebutted” (internal quotation marks 4 and citation omitted)); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“The public policies that support the right 5 of access to dispositive motions, and related materials, do not apply with equal force to non- 6 dispositive materials.”). 7 In the case of a non-dispositive motion, a “good cause” showing will suffice to seal any 8 records attached to the motion. Id. at 1180; see also Midland, 686 F.3d at 1119 (”[A] 9 particularized showing of ‘good cause’ under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient 10 to preserve the secrecy of sealed discovery documents attached to non-dispositive motions.” 11 (citation omitted)). Here, Boeing is not filing a dispositive motion; it is filing a motion to dismiss 12 only some of the causes of the action. Therefore, the Court need only find good cause exists to 13 redact portions of that Motion that address confidential contractual terms. 14 Boeing and LOT agree that the AGTAs set out the contractual terms on which Boeing 15 sells commercial aircraft to its customers, including the terms of delivery, pricing, rebates, and 16 product warranties. Boeing does not publicly disclose information of this kind. It is particularly 17 sensitive because contracts between Boeing and its customers are heavily negotiated and subject 18 to confidential terms and conditions. Boeing and its customers negotiate those contracts with the 19 understanding that those commercial terms will not be disclosed to the public, thereby resulting 20 in competitive harm both to Boeing and to its customers. For precisely this reason, the AGTAs 21 contain provisions requiring the parties to treat as strictly confidential any information pertaining 22 to the AGTAs, including the documents as well as individual provisions contained therein. 23 Similarly, when airline customers lease Boeing aircraft (versus purchasing them outright), the 24 airline customer, such as LOT here, will execute assignments of certain rights under the lessor’s 25 AGTA, and the confidentiality provisions of the AGTAs are one such right assigned. 26 Other courts have consistently permitted parties to redact similar contractual information -3- 1 on the grounds that it is commercially and competitive sensitive. See, e.g., KM Enters., Inc. v. 2 Glob. Traffic Techs., Inc., 725 F.3d 718, 734 (7th Cir. 2013) (sealing “customer and pricing 3 data”); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (redacting 4 “product-specific financial information”); Amgen Inc. v. Amneal Pharms. LLC, 2021 WL 5 4843959, at *2 (D. Del. Oct. 18, 2021) (sealing “contract price at which [manufacturer] sells the 6 . . . product to each customer” and the “chargebacks, rebates, and discounts provided to each 7 customer”). As Judge Posner reasoned, information of this type gives “unearned competitive 8 advantage” to other firms, and “the American public does not need to know [such information] 9 in order to evaluate the handling of this litigation by the judiciary.” SmithKline Beecham Corp. 10 v. Pentech Pharms., Inc., 261 F. Supp. 2d 1002, 1008 (N.D. Ill. 2003). 11 Disclosure of the contractual terms of AGTAs would result in harm to Boeing and its 12 customers. If another aircraft manufacturer learns of these terms, Boeing would be unfairly 13 disadvantaged because the competitor could craft its offers with full knowledge of the package 14 of pricing, services, and other terms that Boeing offers its customers. The result would be that 15 the competitor could craft its own proposals with unilateral insight into Boeing’s confidential 16 contracts. That unfair advantage would arise by virtue of the litigation process, not through any 17 earned business advantage.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 11
12 POLSKIE LINIE LOTNICZE LOT S.A., Case No. 2:21-CV-01449-RSM 13 Plaintiff, STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER 14 vs. FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL 15 THE BOEING COMPANY, 16 Defendant.
17 18 INTRODUCTION 19 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5(g)(2), Plaintiff POLSKIE LINIE LOTNICZE LOT S.A. 20 (“LOT”) and Defendant THE BOEING COMPANY (“Boeing,” and together with LOT, the 21 “Parties”) respectfully move this Court for leave to file Boeing’s Motion to Dismiss First 22 Amended Complaint (“Motion”) under seal because it references portions of the First Amended 23 Complaint that are already under seal and contains other excerpts from, and summaries of, 24 confidential documents containing sensitive contractual terms, the full disclosure of which will 25 result in harm to Boeing’s and its airline customers’ (which includes LOT) commercial interests. 26 1 RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2 The Court previously allowed the parties to file the First Amended Complaint, which also 3 quoted and summarized portions of the AGTA, under seal initially, with the parties proposed 4 limited redactions a week later. See ECF No. 48 (order granting joint request to seal limited to 5 those portions referring to the AGTA terms in the First Amended Complaint). 6 LCR 5(g)(3)(A) CERTIFICATION 7 The Parties have met and conferred and agree about the need for sealing. In accordance 8 with Local Civil Rule 5(g)(3)(A), the undersigned counsel certify that on December 8 and 9, 9 2022, the parties communicated about Boeing’s intention to include, in its Motion to be filed on 10 December 9, 2022, excerpts to and references from Boeing’s Aircraft General Terms Agreements 11 (“AGTAs”) with airline lessors that leased aircraft to LOT (and assigned some contractual AGTA 12 terms to LOT during the course of those lease agreements) and refers to portions of the First 13 Amended Complaint that are already under seal. 14 The Parties therefore agree that Boeing’s Motion will be filed under seal in the first 15 instance, subject to this Court’s approval. The Parties further agreed that, following Boeing’s 16 filing of the Motion under seal, as well as this accompanying Stipulation Motion and [Proposed] 17 Order: (1) the Parties would meet and confer to agree on appropriate redactions to the Motion; 18 and, subject to the Court granting this Stipulated Motion, (2) Boeing would file a redacted copy 19 of its Motion on the public docket within seven (7) days of filing its Motion. 20 The Parties are in further agreement that there is not another means of protecting the 21 commercially sensitive information in the AGTAs. 22 LCR 5(g)(3)(B) LEGAL STANDARD AND ARGUMENT 23 This Court applies a strong presumption favoring public access to court records that 24 ordinarily requires the moving party to provide compelling reasons to seal a document. 25 Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). But where the 26 underlying motion is non-dispositive, the showing required to rebut the presumption is far lower. -2- 1 See, e.g., In re Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 2 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that where the sealed records are “attached to a non-dispositive motion . 3 . . , the usual presumption of the public’s right of access is rebutted” (internal quotation marks 4 and citation omitted)); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“The public policies that support the right 5 of access to dispositive motions, and related materials, do not apply with equal force to non- 6 dispositive materials.”). 7 In the case of a non-dispositive motion, a “good cause” showing will suffice to seal any 8 records attached to the motion. Id. at 1180; see also Midland, 686 F.3d at 1119 (”[A] 9 particularized showing of ‘good cause’ under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient 10 to preserve the secrecy of sealed discovery documents attached to non-dispositive motions.” 11 (citation omitted)). Here, Boeing is not filing a dispositive motion; it is filing a motion to dismiss 12 only some of the causes of the action. Therefore, the Court need only find good cause exists to 13 redact portions of that Motion that address confidential contractual terms. 14 Boeing and LOT agree that the AGTAs set out the contractual terms on which Boeing 15 sells commercial aircraft to its customers, including the terms of delivery, pricing, rebates, and 16 product warranties. Boeing does not publicly disclose information of this kind. It is particularly 17 sensitive because contracts between Boeing and its customers are heavily negotiated and subject 18 to confidential terms and conditions. Boeing and its customers negotiate those contracts with the 19 understanding that those commercial terms will not be disclosed to the public, thereby resulting 20 in competitive harm both to Boeing and to its customers. For precisely this reason, the AGTAs 21 contain provisions requiring the parties to treat as strictly confidential any information pertaining 22 to the AGTAs, including the documents as well as individual provisions contained therein. 23 Similarly, when airline customers lease Boeing aircraft (versus purchasing them outright), the 24 airline customer, such as LOT here, will execute assignments of certain rights under the lessor’s 25 AGTA, and the confidentiality provisions of the AGTAs are one such right assigned. 26 Other courts have consistently permitted parties to redact similar contractual information -3- 1 on the grounds that it is commercially and competitive sensitive. See, e.g., KM Enters., Inc. v. 2 Glob. Traffic Techs., Inc., 725 F.3d 718, 734 (7th Cir. 2013) (sealing “customer and pricing 3 data”); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (redacting 4 “product-specific financial information”); Amgen Inc. v. Amneal Pharms. LLC, 2021 WL 5 4843959, at *2 (D. Del. Oct. 18, 2021) (sealing “contract price at which [manufacturer] sells the 6 . . . product to each customer” and the “chargebacks, rebates, and discounts provided to each 7 customer”). As Judge Posner reasoned, information of this type gives “unearned competitive 8 advantage” to other firms, and “the American public does not need to know [such information] 9 in order to evaluate the handling of this litigation by the judiciary.” SmithKline Beecham Corp. 10 v. Pentech Pharms., Inc., 261 F. Supp. 2d 1002, 1008 (N.D. Ill. 2003). 11 Disclosure of the contractual terms of AGTAs would result in harm to Boeing and its 12 customers. If another aircraft manufacturer learns of these terms, Boeing would be unfairly 13 disadvantaged because the competitor could craft its offers with full knowledge of the package 14 of pricing, services, and other terms that Boeing offers its customers. The result would be that 15 the competitor could craft its own proposals with unilateral insight into Boeing’s confidential 16 contracts. That unfair advantage would arise by virtue of the litigation process, not through any 17 earned business advantage. Likewise, such disclosure would also give other airline customers 18 (or aircraft lessees) access to confidential pricing, services, and other contract terms that Boeing 19 offers to the counterparties to the AGTAs at issue in this case, which would create unearned 20 leverage in negotiations with Boeing arising by virtue of a routine filing in a litigation unrelated 21 to those business entities, rather than through any earned competitive advantage. 22 Finally, the Parties do not propose keeping the entirety of the Motion under seal. See 23 LCR 5(g)(3)(B)(iii) (requiring the least restrictive method to ensure protection of material to be 24 sealed). Instead, the Parties anticipate being able to redact only those portions that quote from or 25 specifically detail terms from the AGTAs. As soon as the Motion is filed, and available to LOT 26 to review, the Parties will work together to prepare such a redacted version for filing in the public -4- 1 record. 2 CONCLUSION 3 For the foregoing reasons, the Parties respectfully request that this Court order the 4 following document be filed under seal: an unredacted copy of Boeing’s Motion to Dismiss the 5 First Amended Complaint. The Parties will submit a redacted copy for filing in the public record 6 within seven (7) days of the Court’s order sealing this Motion. 7 IT IS SO STIPULATED by and between the Parties. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -5- DATED: December 9, 2022 1
2 By: s/ Mirin Park By: s/ Ulrike B. Connelly Mirin Park, WSBA No. 57983 Steve Y. Koh, WSBA No. 23284 3 Eric B. Wolff, WSBA No. 43047 Condon & Forsyth LLP Ulrike B. Connelly, WSBA No. 42478 4 600 Stewart Street Gregory F. Miller, WSBA No. 56466 Suites 300 & 400 Michelle L. Maley, WSBA No. 51318 5 Seattle, Washington 98101 6 Email: mpark@condonlaw.com Perkins Coie LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 7 Anthony U. Battista (pro hac vice) Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Diana Gurfel Shapiro (pro hac vice) Telephone: 206.359.8000 8 Evan Kwarta (pro hac vice) Facsimile: 206.359.9000 9 Mary Dow (pro hac vice) Email: SKoh@perkinscoie.com EWolff@perkinscoie.com 10 Condon & Forsyth LLP UConnelly@perkinscoie.com 7 Times Square, 18th Floor GMiller@perkinscoie.com 11 New York, New York 10036 MMaley@perkinscoie.com Email: abattista@condonlaw.com 12 dgurfel@condonlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant 13 ekwarta@condonlaw.com The Boeing Company mdow@condonlaw.com 14 Attorneys for Plaintiff 15 Polskie Linie Lotnicze LOT S.A. 16
26 -6- 1 ORDER 2 Based upon the foregoing Stipulation, the Court hereby: 3 ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES that the unredacted copy of Defendant 4 Boeing’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint may be filed under seal. 5
6 IT IS SO ORDERED.
7 DATED this 13th day of December, 2022.
8 A 9 10 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -7-