Danielson v. Tropical Shipping And Construction Co., Ltd., 1:17-cv-20704

This matter is a Virgin Islands District Court civil action filed by Danielson, Silicone Distributors, and Trademark Enterprises (on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated) against Tropical Shipping and Construction Co., VI Cargo Services, LLC, and Saltchuk Resources, Inc.
Defendants moved for leave to file certain exhibits under seal to support their Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 15).
Defendants contend the exhibits contain confidential contracts and bills of lading revealing below-tariff price negotiations, which could cause competitive harm if disclosed.
Plaintiffs did not file a response to the motion.
The court analyzes the common law public right of access to judicial records and the heavy burden to seal, including showing specific harm from disclosure.
The court grants the motion, sealing Exhibits D, F, G, I (all parts), K, L, M, O, Q, T, V, Y, AA, and CC (27-1 through 27-17).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exhibits may be sealed given the competitive-harm exception.	Not stated; Plaintiffs did not oppose disclosure in the record provided.	Exhibits contain confidential contracts and bills of lading that could cause competitive harm if disclosed.	Sealing granted; exhibits maintained under seal.
Whether the sealing satisfies the governing burden of showing specific harm.	Not stated.	Showed potential competitive pressures from other customers.	Burden satisfied; sealing approved.

In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2001) (strong presumption of openness; sealing allowed when specific harm shown)
Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059 (3d Cir. 1984) (public right of access to judicial records; may be overcome for confidentiality)
Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673 (3d Cir. 1988) (confidential business information may warrant denial of access)
United States v. Criden, 648 F.2d 814 (3d Cir. 1981) (open records principle guiding access decisions)
Nixon v. Warner Com’s, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (courts’ supervisory power over records; access denied for improper purposes)
Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Tech., Inc., 998 F.2d 157 (3d Cir. 1993) (burden on moving party requires specificity to justify sealing)
Republic of Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 949 F.2d 653 (3d Cir. 1991) (business information may be protected if disclosure would harm competitiveness)
Miller v. Indiana Hosp., 16 F.3d 549 (3d Cir. 1994) (heavy burden; need specific harm to justify keeping records secret)
Bank of America Nat. Trust & Sav. Ass’n v. Hotel Rittenhouse, 800 F.2d 339 (3d Cir. 1986) (principles of public access vs. confidentiality)