Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02399/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02399-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Declaratory Judgement

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Airbus DS Optronics GmbH, a foreign 

company, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Nivisys LLC, WWWT Enterprises LLC, 

and First Texas Holdings Corporation, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-14-02399-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM 

 Pending before the Court are Defendants’ joint motions to seal (Doc. 246, Doc. 

251). The Court now rules on the motions. 

I. Background 

 For the purposes of these motions, it is not necessary to outline the detailed facts 

of this case. It is sufficient to state that Plaintiff Airbus DS Optronics GmbH (“Airbus”) 

seeks to hold Nivisys, LLC (“Nivisys”), WWWT Enterprises, LLC (“WWWT”), and 

First Texas Holdings Corporation (“First Texas”) liable for the debts of Nivisys 

Industries, LLC (“Industries”). Industries was an Arizona limited liability company that 

manufactured and sold defense and surveillance technology products. (Doc. 231 ¶ 1). In 

September of 2008, Industries entered into a purchase contract with Airbus. Through that 

contract, Industries agreed to purchase, and Airbus agreed to supply, certain components 

Case 2:14-cv-02399-JAT Document 292 Filed 03/15/17 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

of an Industries product. (Doc. 234, Exhibit WW). After Industries breached the CoOperation agreement in October 2011, a German court entered judgment against 

Industries in the amount of $1,269,290.05, plus interest. (Doc. 234, Exhibit O). That 

judgment was domesticated and entered against Industries in Maricopa County Superior 

Court on April 16, 2014. (Id.). 

 Throughout 2011 and 2012, Nivisys, WWWT, and First Texas (collectively 

“Defendants”) were involved in the transfer of Industries’ debt and assets of Industries 

over the span of several months in 2012. Nivisys eventually became the owner of most of 

Industries’ assets, and now operates a business substantially similar to that of Nivisys. 

Airbus filed this action against Defendants, seeking to hold them responsible for the 

judgment entered against Industries. 

II. Analysis 

 A. Motion to File Under Seal 

 Defendants have filed three documents with the request that they be filed under 

seal in order to protect Nivisys’ trade secrets and competitive advantage. (See Docs. 246, 

251). The Court generally recognizes the public’s right of access “to inspect and copy . . . 

judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 

(1978). Except for those judicial records that are “traditionally kept secret for important 

policy reasons,” such as grand jury transcripts or warrant materials, there is a “strong 

presumption in favor of access” to judicial materials. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Because a motion for summary judgment 

is a dispositive pleading, Defendants must prove “compelling reasons” for sealing the 

documents. Id. at 1180; see also Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, No. 15-

55084, 2016 WL 142440, at *6 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2016). It is within this Court’s 

discretion to determine what is a “compelling reason” to seal. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. 

 1. Exhibit AA 

 Defendants argue that because Exhibit AA (Doc. 235-1) includes the prices 

Nivisys charged for certain products, it exposes trade secrets. (Doc. 246). The Court 

Case 2:14-cv-02399-JAT Document 292 Filed 03/15/17 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

disagrees. A “trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device, or compilation of 

information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to 

obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.” In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 

298 Fed. Appx. 568, 569–70 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757, 

cmt. B (1939)). Defendants contend that the price of its products is confidential, and that 

if a competitor obtains its pricing information, it may use that information to undercut 

Nivisys’s business. But Defendants themselves admit that the prices shown are not 

current; rather, they are the prices as they existed in 2012. Moreover, a simple price is not 

enough to reveal to a competitor a “formula or pattern” that Nivisys may use to price its 

products. See id. A price, absent more, is not a trade secret, and the Court finds no 

compelling reason to seal Exhibit AA. 

 2. Exhibit LL 

 Exhibit LL (Doc. 235-12) is a consolidated financial statement of First Texas and 

its subsidiaries, which Airbus offers to show that WWWT assumed the liability of 

Industries when it acquired Industries’ assets. (Doc. 234 at ¶ 50). Defendants argue it 

contains confidential financial information regarding the value of Industries, and that the 

information it contains would lead Nivisys’s competitors to persuade potential buyers 

that Nivisys is “just a small company that lacks the financial strength of its 

competitors[.]” (Doc. 246 at 4). But as it is filed, Exhibit LL is so heavily redacted that 

no person could make any reasonable conclusion, negative or otherwise, about the 

financial size or strength of Nivisys. Because it is already sufficiently redacted, the Court 

finds no compelling reason to cause the exhibit to be filed under seal. 

 3. Exhibit D 

 Defendants also argue that Exhibit D (Doc. 250-4) should be filed under seal 

because it discloses the identities of the shareholders of First Texas. (Doc. 251 at 2–3). 

Defendants assert that the exhibit should be sealed because the information therein is not 

relevant to a central issue in the case. The Court disagrees. Central to Airbus’s case is its 

assertion that a commonality of ownership and control existed between the Defendant 

Case 2:14-cv-02399-JAT Document 292 Filed 03/15/17 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

companies; knowledge regarding who owned or owns First Texas is therefore relevant. 

Defendants have not shown any additional compelling reason to file the exhibit under 

seal. 

 Accordingly, the Court denies both motions to seal. (Docs. 246, 251). 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motions to seal (Docs. 246, 251) are 

DENIED; consistent with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.6(c), the Clerk of the Court 

shall not file these documents in the record, but instead shall leave them lodged under 

seal. The offering party must re-file them, unsealed, within 5 calendar days of this Order, 

or choose not to re-file them. Nothing in this Order releases any party from its obligations 

under the Protective Order (Doc. 92). 

 Dated this 15th day of March, 2017. 

 

Case 2:14-cv-02399-JAT Document 292 Filed 03/15/17 Page 4 of 4