Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1172 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2016 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 08-MD-01916 (Marra)

IN RE: CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

ALIEN TORT STATUTE AND
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION
______________________________________________/
This Document Relates To:
ATS ACTION
______________________________________________/
08-80405-CIV-MARRA
DOES (1-254),
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL,
INC., et al.
Defendants.
______________________________________________/

PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
The Court should deny the Julin Plaintiffs' Motion to File Documents Under Seal,
R. 1170, because the public has a strong interest in these proceedings. In particular, the
254 ATS Plaintiffs represented herein were also killed by the FARC guerrillas in
Colombia during the same time period as the Julin plaintiffs. Neither Chiquita nor the
Julin plaintiffs have any legitimate interest in keeping information about payments to the

Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1172 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2016 Page 2 of 4

FARC confidential. Any agreement between these parties is irrelevant to the Court's
analysis.1
The public generally has a right "to inspect and copy public records and
documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Comms., Inc.,
435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). The Eleventh Circuit has noted that "[t]he operation of the
courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern and the
common-law right of access to judicial proceedings, an essential component of our
system of justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of the process." Romero v.
Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted) "The
right of access is not absolute, however [and] may be overcome by a showing of good
cause. Id. "Absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances ... the court file must remain
accessible to the public." Brown v. Advantage Eng'g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th
Cir. 1992).
Although Julin plaintiffs cite to the Romero good cause standard, they fail to state
any unusual circumstances at all. The entry of a protective order, and designation of
discovery material by a party as "confidential" is not an extraordinary circumstance.
The 11th Circuit in Romero weighed the following public and private interest
factors, presuming that good cause could be shown: [1] whether allowing access would
impair court functions or harm legitimate privacy interests, [2] the degree of likelihood of
injury if made public, [3] the reliability of the information, [4] whether there will be an

The Court may note that the same issue was decided by Judge Middlebrooks on October 10, 2014, in
relation to the provision of discovery from a litigant in the instant case, to the Drummond Company. The
fact that the parties have agreed to confidentiality is not a factor. See Order Denying Unopposed Motion to
File Under Seal, R. 11 in case 14-mc-81189-DMM.

Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1172 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2016 Page 3 of 4

opportunity to respond to the information, [5] whether the information concerns public
officials or public concerns, and [6] the availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing the
documents. Romero at 1246. The Julin plaintiffs fail to argue how these factors would apply
in this case.

The balancing of interests does not favor filing under seal. Chiquita has no
legitimate interest in keeping the details of its alleged payments and other support to the
FARC confidential. The alleged payments would have been criminal. Allowing the
Colombian ATS plaintiffs to know the nature of the support provided by Chiquita will
not impair the Court's functioning - the opposite should be true. If the allegations made
by the ATS plaintiffs are inaccurate in some way, they should amend their complaint for
the same reason as the Julin plaintiffs. The ATS plaintiffs do not know enough about the
Julin plaintiffs' proposed amended allegations to argue the second and third factors: the
liklihood of the injury and the reliability of the information. Since the Julin plaintiffs put
no time limit on the sealing of their complaint, it will presumably be sealed forever,
affording no opportunity to respond. Less onerous alternatives exist, such as a temporary
sealing of the complaint, or redacting information that would cause injury to Chiquita.
Therefore, the Romero factors do not favor filing under seal, even if good cause and
extraordinary circumstances could be shown.

Case 0:08-md-01916-KAM Document 1172 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2016 Page 4 of 4

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should DENY the Julin Plaintiffs' Motion to
File Exhibits Under Seal, R. 1170.

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Paul Wolf
___________________
Paul David Wolf, CO Bar 42107
Attorney for Does 1-254
P.O. Box 46213
Denver, CO 80201
(202) 431-6986
fax: n/a
email: paulwolf@yahoo.com

October 28, 2016

.
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that on October 28, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing
Response in Opposition to Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal with the Clerk of Court
using the ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all persons entitled to
receive such notices.
/s/ Paul Wolf
____________________
Paul Wolf CO Bar #42107