AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD. v. XPO INTERMODAL, INC.

Civil Action 2:17-cv-400.

AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD., et al., Plaintiffs, v. XPO INTERMODAL, INC., Defendant.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 09 U.S.C. § 1
Cause: 09 U.S.C. § 1 U.S. Arbitration Act
Nature of Suit: 896 Other Statutes: Arbitration
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

American President Lines, Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Quintin Franc Lindsmith , Bricker & Eckler LLP.

American President Lines, Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Candice Mai Khanh Nguyen , Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Blackman , Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice & Liana Roza Vitale , Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice.

APL Co. Pte. Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Quintin Franc Lindsmith , Bricker & Eckler LLP, Candice Mai Khanh Nguyen , Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Blackman , Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice & Liana Roza Vitale , Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice.

APL Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Quintin Franc Lindsmith , Bricker & Eckler LLP, Candice Mai Khanh Nguyen , Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Blackman , Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice & Liana Roza Vitale , Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice.


ORDER

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON, Magistrate Judge.

Consistent with this Court May 10, 2017 Order, Plaintiffs have submitted the documents relevant to their Motion for Leave to Seal for in camera inspection. The Court has reviewed those documents bearing in mind that Plaintiffs are seeking to seal them consistent with Section 15 of the Amended and Restated Stacktrain Services Agreement. (Doc. 5 at 3). As this Court has observed, however, "[t]he public has a strong interest in obtaining the information contained in the court record." Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., ___ F.3d ___, No. 15-1544, 2016 WL 3163073, at *3 (6th Cir. June 7, 2016) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983)). Balancing the parties' agreement against the "`strong presumption in favor of openness' as to court records" id. (quoting Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179), the Court finds that a temporary seal is appropriate.

Here, Plaintiffs filed a redacted version of its Motion to Compel Arbitration prior to being granted permission to do so by this Court. (See Doc. 3). Although the Court does not look favorably on that decision, the Court will allow the redacted document to stand in light of this decision to allow a temporary seal. However, Plaintiffs' exhibits have not been filed publicly on the Court's docket. Hence, Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file a public redacted version of the exhibits. In light of the foregoing, the Motion to Seal (Doc. 5) is GRANTED temporarily. Once defense counsel has entered an appearance in this case, counsel are DIRECTED to contact this Court to schedule a status conference concerning the scope and ongoing need for the seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases