COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE

STATE OF DELAWARE

J OHN W. N OBLE 417 S OUTH S TATE S TREET

V ICE C HANCELLOR D OVER

, D ELAWARE 19901

T ELEPHONE : (302) 739

- 4397

F ACSIMILE : (302) 739

- 6179

Novembe r 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 designation s governing

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

proceeding and, except as m ay 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 confid ential treatment.

That requires a balancing of the public interest against the harm that publicReid 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 confidentia l

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. En tity Defendants are correct that age does not necessarily assure

th at confidential treatment is no longer warranted. The Entity Defendants,

however, have not supplied any persuasive reasons for continuing confidential

treatment, and, perhaps more importan tly, 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 Jaze e ra Am., LLC v. AT&T

Servs., Inc. , 2013 WL 5 6 14284, at *7 (Del. Ch. Oct. 14, 2013). Information in

Court documents cannot be “kept confiden tial 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 yea rs ago.

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

the documents for w hich the Entity Defendants seek continued confidential

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

En tity 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 docume nts 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

conf identiality 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 furt her 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