| SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION DOCUMENT | |||
| Decision Information | |||
Docket Number:   | AB_1095_1 | ||
Case Title:   | PAULSBORO REFINING COMPANY LLC--ADVERSE ABANDONMENT--IN GLOUCESTER COUNTY, N.J. | ||
Decision Type:   | Decision | ||
Deciding Body:   | Director Of Proceedings | ||
| Decision Summary | |||
Decision Notes:   | DECISION: (1) GRANTED SMS RAIL SERVICE, INC.'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; (2) ORDERED THAT THE PARTIES TO THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH THE PROTECTIVE ORDER IN THE APPENDIX; AND (3) MODIFIED PAULSBORO REFINING COMPANY LLC'S PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE PROTECTIVE ORDER. | ||
| Decision Attachments | |||
| 36 KB 63 KB | |||
| Approximate download time at 28.8 kb: 47 Seconds | |||
If you do not have Acrobat Reader, or if you have problems reading our files with your current version of Acrobat Reader, the latest version of Acrobat Reader is available free at www.adobe.com. | |||
| Full Text of Decision | |||
|
42324 SERVICE DATE – JULY 26, 2012 DO SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION Docket No.
AB 1095 (Sub-No. 1) PAULSBORO
REFINING COMPANY LLC—ADVERSE ABANDONMENT—IN GLOUCESTER COUNTY, N.J. MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER Decided: July 24,
2012 This
decision grants a motion for a protective order in this proceeding. Paulsboro
Refining Company LLC (PRC) owns a 970-acre refinery in Paulsboro, N.J. Within this facility, it owns approximately
5.8 miles of railroad track. SMS Rail
Service, Inc. (SMS) has provided service over this track since 2000, when the
railroad entered into an operating agreement with the facility’s prior owner,
Valero Refining Company – New Jersey (Valero-NJ).[1] Under the parties’ agreement, as amended, SMS
provides common carrier service by interchanging traffic with Norfolk Southern
Railway Company, CSX Transportation, Inc., or their agent, Consolidated Rail
Corporation. SMS also provides plant
switching services under the contract. PRC states that it no longer needs
or seeks to use the common carrier services of SMS, and it wishes to perform
its own plant switching through the use of a noncarrier
switching contractor. PRC claims that it
has given SMS notice of termination, as provided by their contract, but that
SMS has refused to seek Board authority to terminate its service. To hasten the removal of SMS from
the line, PRC filed a petition for adverse or third-party discontinuance
of SMS’ service on January 10, 2012, asking the Board to grant an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. § 10502
from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 10903.
In a decision served on March 2, 2012, the
Board rejected the petition without prejudice to PRC’s coming back for
relief. The decision explained that,
under agency precedent, such relief must be sought in an application. On March 26, 2012, PRC took a step toward
filing its application by petitioning the Board for certain waivers and
exemptions from the abandonment application process. On April 2, 2012, SMS filed a motion
for a protective order. The railroad
explains that granting the motion will facilitate the potential disclosure and
use of commercially sensitive material in this proceeding. As an example of such material, it notes that
an application must include highly confidential carrier revenue and cost data
under 49 C.F.R. § 1152.22. On April 5, 2012, PRC filed a reply
to the motion for a protective order.
Although PRC does not object to the imposition of a protective order, it
believes that certain of the provisions sought by SMS need to be amended before
the order is adopted. Specifically, PRC
asks that: (A) the Board clarify that sections 1(a), (c), and (d) apply to both
confidential and highly confidential material; (B) the Board clarify that a
party can challenge the designation of confidential material as well as the
designation of highly confidential material; (C) section 7 be modified to
remove language suggesting that transportation contracts relating to locations
other than the Paulsboro refinery might be relevant or have to be produced, and
to add language stating that the disclosure of highly confidential material
would not violate 49 U.S.C. § 11904; (D) section 10 be modified to ensure that
PRC (and not just its outside counsel or consultants) can review highly
confidential information provided by SMS related to SMS’ service, given that it
is entitled to this data pursuant to the parties’ contract; and (E) the order
be amended so that any party has the right to reveal its own data or
information. SMS
filed a reply on April 9, 2012, and a request that the Board accept it into the
record.[2] In its reply, SMS does not object to
modifications (A), (B), and (E). It does,
however, oppose modifications (C) and (D).
SMS argues that when the Board adopted versions of section 7 in recent
orders,[3]
none of them extended to highly confidential material, as SMS points out that
PRC’s proposed revision would do. The
railroad contends that PRC’s justification for access to highly confidential
material under section 10 arises from the parties’ contract, but points out
that PRC terminated this agreement as of December 21, 2011. Moreover, in opposing any access by in-house
PRC personnel to highly confidential material, SMS asserts that such access
would defeat the very purpose of having a highly confidential designation. Good cause exists to grant SMS’
protective order, but modified as next discussed. PRC’s proposed modifications (A), (B), and
(E) are reasonable and have not been objected to by SMS. The protective order, therefore, will be
amended to reflect these changes. Modification (C) will be made in
part. PRC is correct that the language
concerning transportation contracts in section 7 is not necessary here. That language is not typically found in
protective orders issued in abandonment proceedings, and transportation
contracts concerning other facilities would most likely be beyond the scope of
this proceeding. Deleting that part of
section 7 is therefore appropriate. PRC also asks that language be added
to section 7 stating that the disclosure of highly confidential material would
not violate 49 U.S.C. § 11904. As noted
by SMS, however, similar provisions in other protective orders do not include
reference to the disclosure of highly confidential data and Board practice
consistently has allowed parties to protect the disclosure of highly
confidential information or data to in-house counsel or employees of other parties. PRC has not justified why the section should
be broadened beyond its traditional wording, and only the traditional language
concerning § 11904 will therefore appear in the protective order. Modification (D), however, will not
be made. In (D), PRC seeks access in
section 10 to highly confidential data.
But that information is usually shielded from a party to a proceeding
and PRC has provided no reason for the Board to depart from standard practice.[4] The protective order, as modified,
will be adopted. The unrestricted
disclosure of this material, or other confidential, proprietary, or
commercially sensitive material produced during the course of this proceeding,
could harm the parties. The motion, subject to the
modifications discussed above, conforms with
49 C.F.R. § 1104.14 (governing requests for protective orders to
maintain the confidentiality of materials submitted to the Board), and
49 C.F.R. § 1114.21(c) (governing protective orders regarding
discovery). Issuance of the requested protective
order, as modified, will ensure that the material will be used only in
connection with this proceeding and not for any other business or commercial
purpose. Accordingly, SMS’ proposed
protective order and undertakings, as modified in the Appendix to this
decision, will be adopted. This action will not significantly
affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of
energy resources. It is ordered: 1.
SMS’ reply is accepted. 2.
The motion for a protective order is granted and the protective order
and undertakings in the Appendix to this decision will be adopted, as modified
here. 3.
The parties are directed to comply with the protective order set forth
in the Appendix to this decision. 4.
This decision is effective on its service date. By the Board, Richard Armstrong,
Acting Director, Office of Proceedings. APPENDIX PROTECTIVE ORDER 1.
Any party producing information, data, documents, or other material
(hereinafter collectively referred to as “material”) in discovery to another
party to this proceeding, or submitting material in pleadings, that the party
in good faith believes reflects proprietary or confidential information, may
designate and stamp such material as “CONFIDENTIAL,” and such material must be
treated as confidential. Such material,
any copies, and any data or notes derived therefrom: (a) Shall be used
solely for the purpose of this proceeding and any judicial review proceeding
arising therefrom, and not for any other business, commercial, or competitive
purpose. (b) May be disclosed
only to employees, counsel, or agents of the party requesting such material who
have a need to know, handle, or review the material for purposes of this
proceeding and any judicial review proceeding arising therefrom, and only where
such employee, counsel, or agent has been given and has read a copy of this
Protective Order, agrees to be bound by its terms, and executes the attached
Undertaking for Confidential Material prior to receiving access to such
materials, and provides a copy of the executed Undertaking to counsel for party
providing the CONFIDENTIAL material. (c) Must be destroyed
by the requesting party, its employees, counsel, and agents, at the completion
of this proceeding and any judicial review proceeding arising therefrom. However, counsel and consultants for a party
are permitted to retain file copies of all pleadings which they are authorized
to review under this Protective Order, including Paragraph 12. (d) If contained in any
pleading filed with the Board, shall, in order to be kept confidential, be
filed only in pleadings submitted in a package clearly marked on the outside
“Confidential Materials Subject to Protective Order.” See 49 C.F.R. § 1104.14. (e) If any party wishes
to challenge such designation, the party may bring such matter to the attention
of the Board. 2.
Any party producing material in discovery to another party to this
proceeding, or submitting material in pleadings, may
in good faith designate and stamp particular material, such as material
containing shipper-specific rate or cost data, or other competitively sensitive
information, as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL.”
Material that is so designated may be disclosed only to outside counsel
or outside consultants of the party requesting such materials who have a need
to know, handle, or review the materials for purposes of this proceeding and
any judicial review proceeding arising therefrom, provided that such outside
counsel or outside consultants have been given and have read a copy of this
Protective Order, agree to be bound by its terms, execute the attached
Undertaking for Highly Confidential Material prior to receiving access to such
materials, and provide a copy of the executed undertaking to counsel for the party
providing the “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” material.
Material designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” and produced in discovery
under this provision shall be subject to all of the other provisions of this
Protective Order, including without limitation Paragraph 1(a), (c), (d), and
(e). 3. In the event that a party produces material which should
have been designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” and
inadvertently fails to designate the material as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL,”
the producing party may notify the other party in writing within 5 days of
discovery of its inadvertent failure to make the confidentiality
designation. The party who received the
material without the confidentiality designation will return the non-designated
portion (including any and all copies) or destroy it, as directed by the
producing party, or take such other steps as the parties agree to in
writing. The producing party will
promptly furnish the receiving party with properly designated material. 4.
In the event that a party inadvertently produces material that is
protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other
privilege, the producing party may make a written request within a reasonable
time after the producing party discovers the inadvertent disclosure that the
other party return the inadvertently produced
privileged document. The party who
received the inadvertently produced document will either return the document to
the producing party or destroy the document immediately upon receipt of the
written request, as directed by the producing party. By returning or destroying the document, the
receiving party is not conceding that the document is privileged and is not
waiving its right to later challenge the substantive privilege claim, provided
that it may not challenge the privilege claim by arguing that the inadvertent
production waived the privilege. 5.
If any party intends to use “CONFIDENTIAL” and/or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL”
material at hearings in this proceeding, or in any judicial review proceeding
arising herefrom, the party so intending shall submit
any proposed exhibits or other documents setting forth or revealing such
“CONFIDENTIAL” and/or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” material to the Board, or the
court, as appropriate, with a written request that the Board or the court: (a) restrict attendance at the hearings
during discussion of such “CONFIDENTIAL” and/or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” material,
and (b) restrict access to the portion of the record or briefs reflecting
discussion of such “CONFIDENTIAL” and/or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” material in
accordance with the terms of this Protective Order. 6.
If any party intends to use “CONFIDENTIAL” and/or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL”
material in the course of any deposition in this proceeding, the party so
intending shall so advise counsel for the party producing the materials,
counsel for the deponent, and all other counsel attending the deposition, and
all portions of the deposition at which any such “CONFIDENTIAL” and/or “HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL” material is used shall be restricted to persons who may review
the material under this Protective Order.
All portions of deposition transcripts and/or exhibits that consist of
or disclose “CONFIDENTIAL” and/or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” material shall be kept
under seal and treated as “CONFIDENTIAL” and/or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” material
in accordance with the terms of this Protective Order. 7.
To the extent that “CONFIDENTIAL” material is produced by a party in
this or any related proceedings, and is held and used by the receiving person
in compliance with the terms of this Protective Order, such production,
disclosure, and use of the material and of the data that the material contains
will be deemed essential for the disposition of this and any related
proceedings and will not be deemed a violation of 49 U.S.C. § 11904 or of any
other relevant provision of the ICC Termination Act of 1995. 8.
Except for this proceeding, the parties agree that if a party is
required by law or order of a governmental or judicial body to release
“CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” material produced by the other party or
copies or notes thereof as to which it obtained access pursuant to this
Protective Order, the party so required shall notify the producing party in
writing within 3 working days of the determination that the “CONFIDENTIAL”
material, “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” material, or copies or notes are to be
released, or within 3 working days prior to such release, whichever is soonest,
to permit the producing party the opportunity to contest the release. 9.
Information that is publicly available or obtained outside of this
proceeding from a person with a right to disclose it publicly shall not be
subject to this Protective Order even if the same information is produced and
designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” in this proceeding. 10. Each party has a
right to view its own data, information, and documentation (i.e., information originally generated or compiled
by or for that party), even if that data, information, and documentation has
been designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” by a producing party, without securing
prior permission from the producing party.
If a party (the “filing party”) files and serves upon the other party
(the “reviewing party”) a pleading or evidence containing “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL”
material of the filing party, the filing party shall also contemporaneously
provide to outside counsel for the reviewing party a list of the “HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL” information of the filing party contained in the pleading that
must be redacted from the “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” version prior to review by the
in-house personnel of the reviewing party. 11. Nothing in this
Protective Order restricts the right of any party to disclose voluntarily any
“CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” material originated by that party, if
such material does not contain or reflect any “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL” material originated by any other party. 12. Any party filing
with the Board a “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” pleading in this
proceeding should simultaneously file a public version of the pleading. UNDERTAKING CONFIDENTIAL
MATERIAL I,
________________________, have read the Protective Order served on July 26,
2012, governing the production of confidential documents in AB 1095 (Sub-No.
1), understand the same, and agree to be bound by its terms. I agree not to use or permit the use of any
data or information obtained under this Undertaking, or to use or permit the
use of any techniques disclosed or information learned as a result of receiving
such data or information, for any purposes other than the preparation and
presentation of evidence and argument in AB 1095 (Sub-No. 1) or any judicial
review proceeding arising therefrom. I
further agree not to disclose any data or information obtained under this
Protective Order to any person who has not executed an Undertaking in the form
hereof. At the conclusion of this
proceeding and any judicial review proceeding arising therefrom, I will
promptly destroy any copies of such designated documents obtained or made by me
or by any outside counsel or outside consultants working with me, provided,
however, that counsel and consultants may retain copies of pleadings which they
were authorized to review under the Protective Order. I understand and
agree that money damages would not be a sufficient remedy for breach of this
Undertaking and that parties producing confidential documents shall be entitled
to specific performance and injunctive or other equitable relief as a remedy
for any such breach, and I further agree to waive any requirement for the
securing or posting of any bond in connection with such remedy. Such remedy shall not be deemed to be the
exclusive remedy for breach of this Undertaking but shall be in addition to all
remedies available at law or equity. ___________________________________ Dated:______________________________ UNDERTAKING HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL As outside [
counsel ] [ consultant ] for _______________________________, for which I am
acting in this proceeding, I, _______________________________, have read the
Protective Order served on July 26, 2012, governing the production of highly
confidential documents in AB 1095 (Sub-No. 1), understand the same, and agree
to be bound by its terms. I further
agree not to disclose any data, information or material designated “HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL” to any person or entity who: (i) is
not eligible for access to “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” material under the terms of
the Protective Order, or (ii) has not executed an Undertaking for Highly
Confidential Material in the form hereof.
I also understand and agree, as a condition precedent to my receiving,
reviewing, or using copies of any documents designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL”
that I will limit my use of those documents and the information they contain to
this proceeding and any judicial review proceeding arising therefrom; that I
will take all necessary steps to assure that said documents and information
will be kept on a confidential basis by any outside counsel or outside
consultants working with me; that under no circumstances will I permit access
to said documents or information by personnel of my client, its subsidiaries,
affiliates, or owners; and that at the conclusion of this proceeding and any
judicial review proceeding arising therefrom I will promptly destroy any copies
of such designated documents obtained or made by me or by any outside counsel
or outside consultants working with me, provided, however, that outside counsel
and consultants may retain file copies of pleadings filed with the Board. I further understand that I must destroy all
notes or other documents containing “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” information in
compliance with the terms of the Protective Order. Under no circumstances will I permit access
to documents designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” by, or disclose any information
contained therein to, any persons or entities for which I am not acting in this
proceeding. I understand and agree
that money damages would not be a sufficient remedy for breach of this
Undertaking and that parties producing confidential documents shall be entitled
to specific performance and injunctive or other equitable relief as a remedy
for any such breach, and I further agree to waive any requirement for the
securing or posting of any bond in connection with such remedy. Such remedy shall not be deemed to be the
exclusive remedy for breach of this Undertaking but shall be in addition to all
remedies available at law or equity. ______________________________________ OUTSIDE [COUNSEL]
[CONSULTANT] TO _________________________ [Party name] Dated: _______________________________ [1] See SMS Rail Service—Acquis. and Operation
Exemption—Valero Refining Co.—N.J., FD 33927 (STB served Sept. 22,
2000). According to PRC, on December 13,
2010, Valero-NJ changed its name to the petitioner’s name, Paulsboro Refining
Company LLC, and on December 17, 2010, PBF Holding Company LLC acquired
all of the ownership interests of PRC. [3] See Palmer Ranch Holdings—Adverse Aban.—Seminole Gulf Ry., in Sarasota Cnty.,
Fla., AB 400 (Sub-No. 5), slip op. at section 14 of protective order (STB
served Jan. 9, 2012); and Stewartstown R.R.—Adverse Aban.—In
York Cnty., Pa., AB 1071, slip op. at section 13
of protective order (STB served June 30, 2011). | |||