112 Fed. Cl. 313
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Consolidated post-judgment proceedings concern motions to unseal or redact sealed trial-record information under RCFC 26(c)(1)(G).
- Government seeks unsealing of most trial materials deemed confidential; Sikorsky opposes as untimely and competitively sensitive under protective order.
- Judgment entered March 22, 2013; appeals docketed in the Federal Circuit; court has limited post-judgment jurisdiction.
- Parties previously filed a joint motion to unseal under Federal Circuit Rule 11(d), which was granted before these motions.
- Cost-accounting data and related costs (direct/materials, labor, indirect costs) formed the evidentiary basis for the CAS dispute and are the core of the protective order’s scope.
- Protective order intended to shield cost-of-production data to avoid competitive harm; disputes center on whether that protection should continue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the unsealing motion was timely under Rule 11(d) | Sikorsky argues untimely. | Government contends timely under Rule 11(d). | Untimely; Rule 11(d) time limits not satisfied. |
| Whether the data qualify as trade secret or confidential commercial information | Cost data are confidential and competitively sensitive. | Data are protected under the protective order to prevent competitive harm. | Protective order upheld; cost data may remain sealed. |
| Whether the protective order should be modified or unsealed given appellate posture | No change; data remains sensitive. | Order should be revisited due to changed circumstances on appeal. | Protective order not modified; motions denied. |
| Whether unsealing would cause substantial competitive harm | Unsealing would not harm Sikorsky’s competitiveness. | Unsealing would cause competitive harm by exposing costs and processes. | Balancing favors continued protection of cost data. |
| Whether the government’s alternative redaction/sealing requests were properly denied | Requests unnecessary if data stay sealed already. | Partial sealing/redaction appropriate for non-sensitive material. | Denied as to unsealing; sealed motion to seal page 172 denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- L-3 Communications Integrated Sys., L.P. v. United States, 98 F.3d 1175 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (protective orders and disclosure considerations in bid protests)
- United Technologies Corp. v. United States Dep’t of Defense, 601 F.3d 557 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (protective orders; disclosure of manufacturing-cost data; competitive harm)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States Dep’t of the Air Force, 375 F.3d 1182 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (cost disclosures may cause competitive harm; FOIA context cited)
- Hitkansut LLC v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 228 (2013) (protective order for competitive-information includes manufacturing costs)
- General Elec. Co. v. Department of the Air Force, 648 F. Supp. 2d 95 (D.D.C. 2009) (protection of unit prices and related data from disclosure)