Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01019/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01019-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRAYLOR BROS., INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT

DISTRICT, 

Defendant.

_________________________________

AND RELATED THIRD-PARTY

ACTION.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08-cv-1019-L(WVG)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

[DOC. 110],

(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

EXCESS PAGES [DOC. 106], AND

(3) TERMINATING DEFENDANT’S EX

PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE

HEARING DATE AS MOOT [DOC. 115]

Pending before the Court are three requests related to Plaintiff Traylor Bros. Inc.’s

anticipated motion for partial summary judgment against Defendant / Third-Party Plaintiff San

Diego Unified Port District (“Port”). These requests include (1) Traylor Bros.’ motion to file

documents under seal, (2) Traylor Bros.’ ex parte application seeking leave to file excess pages

for its anticipated motion, and (3) the Port’s ex parte application to continue the hearing date

reserved by Traylor Bros. for its anticipated motion. To date, Traylor Bros.’ motion to file

documents under seal remains unopposed. Both ex parte applications, however, are opposed.

For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Traylor Bros.’ motion to file documents

under seal, DENIES Traylor Bros.’ ex parte application, and TERMINATES AS MOOT the

Port’s ex parte application.

08cv1019

Case 3:08-cv-01019-BTM-WVG Document 120 Filed 03/26/12 Page 1 of 5
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

I. ANALYSIS

This case arises from a public-works construction project performed by Traylor Bros. for

the Port. The project involved the demolition and removal of existing piers and launchway

structures and other debris, and the dredging and disposal of contaminated bay sediment in

preparation for the installation of an engineered cap system. According to Traylor Bros., the

anticipated motion for partial summary judgment seeks to establish (1) that its interpretation of

the contract documents relating to the Dredging & Capping Claim is reasonable such that, as a

matter of law, the contract documents are at best ambiguous and must be construed against the

Port, and (2) the Port’s liability for the extra time incurred and extra work performed by Traylor

Bros.

A. Traylor Bros.’ Motion to File Documents Under Seal

“[A] ‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at

677-78. A party seeking to seal judicial records must show that “compelling reasons supported

by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general history of access and the public policies

favoring disclosure.” Id. at 678 (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006)) (internal quotation marks omitted). This standard derives from the

common-law right “to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records

and documents.” Id.; see also Nixon v. Warner Comm’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). As

long as the particular document is not one that is “traditionally kept secret,” the presumption of

access “extends to pretrial documents filed in civil cases, including materials submitted in

connection with motions for summary judgment.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331

F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2003). However, this right to access is not absolute. “‘[C]ompelling

reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court

records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such

as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous

statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at

678). But “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment,

08cv1019

2

Case 3:08-cv-01019-BTM-WVG Document 120 Filed 03/26/12 Page 2 of 5
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

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its

records.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136).

Traylor Bros. seeks to file under seal the conformed estimate of Dutra Dredging Company

(“Dutra”), the only other contractor to submit a bid for the subject project, in support of its

anticipated motion for partial summary judgment. It indicates that the parties obtained Dutra’s

conformed estimate during discovery process. (Pl.’s Mot. to Seal 1:27–29.) Traylor Bros. also

contends that the conformed estimate “contains the [Dutra’s] trade secrets, proprietary

information, and private financial information, which, if made available to the public, would

irreparably impact Dutra’s future ability to successfully bid public works projects.” (Id. at

1:28–2:2, 4:1–8.) It supports its motion with the declaration of its counsel, Catherine A. Hanna. 

Traylor Bros. argues that these circumstances satisfy the Ninth Circuit’s compellingreasons standard. (Pl.’s Mot. to Seal 3:19–4:12.) The Court agrees. Exposing Dutra’s 1

conformed estimate to the public has the potential to greatly disadvantage it in the future

commercial ventures. Furthermore, Civil Local Rule 7.1(f.3.c) expressly provides that “[i]f an

opposing party fails to file papers in the manner required by Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may

constitute a consent to the granting of that motion or other ruling by the court.” Thus, the Court

considers the Port’s failure to respond to the motion as consent to granting it.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Traylor Bros.’ motion to file Dutra’s conformed

estimate under seal. (Doc. 110.)

B. Traylor Bros.’ Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Excess Pages

Civil Local Rule 7.1(h) provides that “[b]riefs or memoranda in support of or in

opposition to all motions noticed for the same motion day must not exceed twenty-five (25)

pages in length for all such motions without leave of the judge who will hear the motion.” 

Furthermore, “[n]o reply memorandum will exceed ten (10) pages without leave of the judge.” 

 The Court also notes that the less burdensome “good cause” standard may apply to the 1

documents produced here, which Traylor Bros. nonetheless also satisfies. See Pintos, 605 F.3d

at 678.

08cv1019

3

Case 3:08-cv-01019-BTM-WVG Document 120 Filed 03/26/12 Page 3 of 5
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

Civil L.R. 7.1(h). Given the district court’s inherent power to control their dockets, whether to

grant leave to exceed the page limits set forth in the Civil Local Rules appears to be at the full

discretion of the Court. See United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008) (en

banc) (noting also that “judges exercise substantial discretion over what happens inside the

courtroom”).

Here, Traylor Bros. requests leave to file a 60-page motion—35 pages in excess of the

page limit imposed by the Civil Local Rules. Traylor Bros. indicates that despite its “best and

vigorous efforts,” it “believes that these pages are necessary so that the relevant facts,

particularly the pertinent excerpts from the voluminous Contract Documents, can be properly

framed in a single document without the added burden to the Court of having to cross-reference

facts set forth in separate documents.” (Pl.’s Excess Pages Ex Parte Appl. 2:3–9.) The Port and

Third-Party Defendant Anchor Environmental, LLC (“Anchor”) argue that Traylor Bros. fails to 2

demonstrate good cause in support of its request. The Court is inclined to agree with the Port

and Anchor.

With its ex parte application, Traylor Bros. also submitted a copy of the 60-page partialsummary-judgment motion that it intends to file. A cursory review of the anticipated motion

shows that a substantial portion of the motion—just under 40 pages—is allocated to providing

background information. However, if Traylor Bros. justifies the need to exceed the page limits

in order to insert pertinent contract excerpts, it fails to show good cause that the additional pages

are necessary. By the Court’s assessment, contract excerpts amount to no more than a few extra

pages. Moreover, viewing a particular portion of a contract out of context may deprive the

Court, as well as the Port, of important insight into the meaning of that portion. Regardless,

exceeding the 25-page limit imposed by the Civil Local Rules by 35 pages is excessive. 

Therefore, the Court will not exercise its discretion to grant Traylor Bros. leave to file excess

pages.

 Anchor jointly opposes Traylor Bros.’ ex parte application. (Pl.’s Excess Pages Ex 2

Parte Appl. 2:3–5.) Anchor also joins the Port in its ex parte application to continue the hearing

date for Traylor Bros.’ anticipated motion. (Notice of Joinder [Doc. 117].)

08cv1019

4

Case 3:08-cv-01019-BTM-WVG Document 120 Filed 03/26/12 Page 4 of 5
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

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Traylor Bros.’ ex parte application for leave to file

excess pages. (Doc. 106.) Furthermore, given that the reserved hearing date for Traylor Bros.’

anticipated motion is no longer in compliance with this district’s 28-Day Rule under Civil Local

Rule 7.1(e.1), the Court TERMINATES AS MOOT the Port and Anchor’s ex parte application

to continue the hearing date. (Doc. 115.)

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER

In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby:

(1) GRANTS Traylor Bros.’ motion to file documents under seal (Doc. 110),

(2) DENIES Traylor Bros.’ ex parte application for leave to file excess pages (Doc.

106), and

(3) TERMINATES AS MOOT the Port and Anchor’s ex parte application to

continue the hearing date reserved for Traylor Bros.’ anticipated motion (Doc.

115).

When Traylor Bros. is prepared to file their motion, it may obtain a new hearing date

from chambers. After reserving the hearing date, Traylor Bros. must be ready to file its motion

within 3 days. Furthermore, in accordance with the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases,

telephone calls to chambers should be limited to obtaining hearing dates for motions or

“unavoidable circumstances.” With that in mind, the parties are warned to exercise their sound

judgment when calling chambers. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 26, 2011

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

08cv1019

5

Case 3:08-cv-01019-BTM-WVG Document 120 Filed 03/26/12 Page 5 of 5