COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE 

STATE OF DELAWARE

 JOHN W. NOBLE 417 SOUTH STATE STREET

VICE CHANCELLOR DOVER, DELAWARE 19901

 TELEPHONE: (302) 739-4397

 FACSIMILE: (302) 739-6179

November 20, 2014

David W. deBruin, Esquire Rachel E. Horn, Esquire

The deBruin Firm LLC Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.

405 N. King Street, Suite 440 920 North King Street

Wilmington, DE 19801 Wilmington, DE 19801

Re: Reid v. Siniscalchi

C.A. No. 2874-VCN

Date Submitted: June 12, 2014

Dear Counsel:

The Plaintiff has sought to vacate confidentiality designations governing 

several of the documents in this litigation. This proceeding, of course, is a public 

proceeding and, except as may now be authorized under Court of Chancery 

Rule 5.1, all pleadings and other documents are available to the public.

The question is whether the confidentiality designations of the documents 

generally are supported by a showing of “good cause” for confidential treatment. 

That requires a balancing of the public interest against the harm that public 
Reid v. Siniscalchi

C.A. No. 2874-VCN

November 20, 2014

Page 2

disclosure might entail with respect to sensitive nonpublic information.1 Many of 

the documents that have been designated as confidential deserved confidential 

treatment at one time because they contained information regarding business 

strategies, product development, and perhaps governmental relationships. They 

are now well over ten years old, and the need for confidential treatment is no 

longer apparent. Entity Defendants are correct that age does not necessarily assure 

that confidential treatment is no longer warranted. The Entity Defendants, 

however, have not supplied any persuasive reasons for continuing confidential 

treatment, and, perhaps more importantly, they offer no reason why the need for 

confidential treatment outweighs the public interest in this Court’s proceedings.

2

 

1

“Those who decide to litigate in a public forum . . . must do so in a manner 

consistent with the right[s] of the public . . . .” Al Jazeera Am., LLC v. AT&T 

Servs., Inc., 2013 WL 5614284, at *7 (Del. Ch. Oct. 14, 2013). Information in 

Court documents cannot be “kept confidential merely because disclosure has the 

potential for collateral economic consequences.” Id. at *5.

2

I am not unmindful of Mr. Amicucci’s affidavit in reaching this conclusion. He 

may provide valid reasons for why confidential treatment was warranted years ago. 

His concerns, however, lose force with the passage of time. For example, many of 

the documents for which the Entity Defendants seek continued confidential 

treatment relate to the planning, negotiating, and financing of the satellite project. 

Entity Defendants provide no basis to conclude that these presumably stale 

documents require further protection.
Reid v. Siniscalchi

C.A. No. 2874-VCN

November 20, 2014

Page 3

Accordingly, the Motion to Maintain Confidential Treatment is denied and 

documents that have been filed in this action and documents that will be filed in 

this action, at least without a further and specific showing that confidential 

treatment is appropriate for any particular document, will be deemed public.

I do not claim to have thoroughly reviewed every document that has a 

confidentiality designation. Because it is at least conceivable that there may be a 

very small number of documents that continue to deserve confidential treatment, 

implementation of this order will be stayed for a period of sixty days. In the 

absence of further order, the documents will no longer be entitled to a confidential 

treatment designation at the end of the sixty-day period.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

/s/ John W. Noble

JWN/cap

cc: Register in Chancery-K