SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD DECISION DOCUMENT
    Decision Information

Docket Number:  
AB_1071_0

Case Title:  
STEWARTSTOWN RAILROAD COMPANY--ADVERSE ABANDONMENT--IN YORK COUNTY, PA.

Decision Type:  
Decision

Deciding Body:  
Director Of Proceedings

    Decision Summary

Decision Notes:  
DECISION DENIED A MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER IN THIS PROCEEDING.

    Decision Attachments

80 KB
25 KB

Approximate download time at 28.8 kb: 50 Seconds

Note:
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

39018

42210                                      SERVICE DATE – APRIL 25, 2012

DO

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

 

DECISION

 

Docket No. AB 1071

 

STEWARTSTOWN RAILROAD COMPANY—ADVERSE ABANDONMENT—IN YORK COUNTY, PA.

 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

 

Decided: April 24, 2012

 

By motion filed on January 18, 2012, and a supplemental filing received on January 25, 2012, James Riffin (Riffin) seeks a protective order under 49 C.F.R. § 1104.14(b) to protect certain documents and information he has designated as highly confidential, and submitted in connection with his intended Offer of Financial Assistance (OFA), should the Board grant abandonment authority in this proceeding.[1]  Included as an Appendix to the motion are a proposed protective order and confidential undertaking. 

 

 Riffin submits that a protective order is necessary because certain documents reflect highly confidential, personal financial statements and data which Riffin does not want disclosed to the public.        

 

The requested motion will be denied.  The protective order sought by Riffin is unnecessary, as the Board previously issued a protective order in this proceeding on June 29, 2011 (2011 Protective Order).  The 2011 Protective Order defines “Confidential Information” to include, among other things, confidential terms of contracts or discussions with shippers, potential shippers, or carriers; confidential financial and cost data and other confidential or proprietary business or personal information.  Further, a party may designate Confidential Information as “Highly Confidential” if the submission contains “shipper-specific rate or cost data, division of rates, trackage rights compensation levels,” or “other competitively sensitive or proprietary information.”  The 2011 Protective Order states that “any party to these Proceedings may challenge the designation by any other party of information or documents as ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ or as ‘HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL’ by filing a motion with the Board . . . .”  Riffin has designated the information in his January 18th and 25th filings as “Highly Confidential,” and, although SRC and the Estate have moved to reject or deny Riffin’s separate protective order and other filings related to his stated intent to file an OFA,[2] no party has challenged Riffin’s designation under the existing protective order. 

 

            This decision will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

 

            It is ordered

 

1.      The motion for protective order is denied.

 

            2.  This decision is effective on its service date.

 

            By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.

 



[1]  Along with his Motion for Protective Order filed on January 18, 2012, Riffin filed a Notice of Intent to Participate as a Party of Record and a Notice of Intent to file an OFA (OFA Notice).  On January 20, 2012, the Estate of George M. Hart and Stewartstown Railroad Company filed a joint reply requesting that the Board reject or deny Riffin’s OFA Notice and related filings in this proceeding.              

[2]  The Board will address in a subsequent decision whether Riffin may file an OFA.