Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Shell Oil Products US et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION, INC., 	:
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	: 	C.A. No. 17-396-JJM
:
EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC (d/b/a SHELL 	:
OIL PRODUCTS US), et al., 	:
Defendants. 	:
ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN, United States Magistrate Judge.
Now pending before the Court is the motion of Plaintiff, Conservation Law Foundation,
Inc. (“CLF”) challenging Defendants’ confidentiality designations. ECF No. 283. The motion
was filed on October 17, 2025, in accordance with the deadline set by Case Management Order #
2. ECF No. 235 at 3. The confidentiality designations were made by Defendants pursuant to the
stipulated protective order entered by the Court, ECF No. 67, and CLF challenged 500 of them,
reserving its right to seek to de-designate additional documents produced in September 2025 and
thereafter. Since the motion was filed, the parties have continued to meet and confer, the Court
held an initial hearing, the parties filed a joint status report (ECF No. 305) and the Court held
another hearing.
As a preliminary matter, the Court makes no finding one way or the other that Defendants
improperly over-designated as confidential documents produced in discovery. Although CLF
represents that almost 98% of Defendants’ production was designated confidential, given the
nature of this case, the Court does not find that such a percentage gives rise to an inference that
Defendants’ approach to confidentiality designation was per se improper. ECF No. 283 at 5.
Nor as (of this writing) has the Court found any specific instance of a document designated
Case 1:17-cv-00396-JJM-PAS Document 309 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
confidential that clearly should not have been so designated. Rather, the Court finds that the
protective order’s provision permitting confidentiality designation has been used to facilitate
production of sensitive documents during the discovery phase of the case when the interest of the
producing party in protecting sensitive “raw” production is at its highest and the public interest
in accessing such “raw” production is at its lowest. See Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S.
20, 32-34 (1984) (there is no tradition of public access to “raw” discovery materials; “restraints
placed on discovered, but not yet admitted, information are not a restriction on a traditionally
public source of information”); Poliquin v. Garden Way, Inc., 989 F.2d 527, 535 (1st Cir. 1993)
(“effective discovery . . . is achieved by affording relatively generous protection”). The Court
further finds that, as the case proceeds from here, particularly as the Court begins to issue
decisions in reliance on documents that the parties present as pertinent to the Court’s
determination, the public interest in access to such documents grows, until trial when it is at its
peak and only the most sensitive documents, public disclosure of which would impose
significant harm, should be redacted or (rarely) sealed.
Based on the foregoing, the Court now rules that the motion to de-designate is granted in
part and denied in part as follows:
1. 	As to the set of 500 and further “raw” discovery documents produced in September
2025 and thereafter, the parties shall continue to meet and confer regarding CLF’s
challenge to Defendants’ confidentiality designations. Through these discussions, the
parties shall establish categories of documents as to which CLF believes the
documents should be de-designated and Defendants believe that the confidential
designations should be sustained. Once these discussions have reached impasse, CLF
may (but is not required to) file a new motion for de-designation based on a request
Case 1:17-cv-00396-JJM-PAS Document 309 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
for in-camera review of exemplar documents that reflect tranches of designated
material falling into a category. Unless otherwise noted in the motion (for example,
noting that a particular “raw” discovery document also constitutes a “judicial record”
as defined infra), the Court’s determination will be based on the status of these
materials as “raw” discovery, as to which the public right of access is low. See
Seattle Times Co., 467 U.S. at 32-34. Put differently, this phase of the de-designation
process is for the limited purpose of weeding out obvious over designation or
improper designation. The Court further notes its expectation that no more than ten
documents would be presented for in-camera review except for good cause shown.
2. 	As to documents provided to the Court in support of or in opposition to dispositive
and other merits-related motions (such as a motion for summary judgment, a motion
in limine or to preclude, or a Daubert motion), such documents constitute “judicial
records,” which are subject to a presumptive right of access. See Roy v. FedEx
Ground Package Sys., Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-30116-KAR, 2024 WL 2025763, at *2
(D. Mass. May 7, 2024). Accordingly, CLF may challenge the designation of any
such document, using the procedure described in paragraph 1 supra but the Court’s
determination will be based on the status of the material as “judicial records.” This
opportunity for de-designation shall not be triggered by discovery motions or routine
procedural motions (such as motions to extend time).
3. 	As to documents still designated as confidential at the time of trial that are marked by
either party as potential trial exhibits, Defendants shall reassess the confidentiality
status of such documents and shall seek to sustain the confidentiality designation only
based on a good faith belief that public exposure of the documents would result in
Case 1:17-cv-00396-JJM-PAS Document 309 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
injury. As to any proposed trial exhibit for which confidentiality is still asserted,
Defendants shall provide CLF with a log setting forth a specific justification for the
designation, with supporting declarations either document-by-document or
categorically. To the extent that CLF objects to any such confidentiality designation
and Defendants still seek to sustain it, the parties shall seek guidance from the Court
regarding how to proceed, mindful that Defendants must overcome the strong
presumption of public access as to each such document.
4. 	Because the balancing of Defendants’ interest in protecting its confidential documents
and the public interest in access shifts as the case proceeds and the public interest
heightens, CLF may challenge a confidentiality designation previously sustained by
the Court if the new context gives rise to an arguably heightened public interest.
5. 	The Court clarifies that de-designation of a previously confidential document means
that it may be used in this case (or in the related Connecticut case) without being
sealed or redacted. However, even if no longer designated as confidential, such
documents may not be used by CLF for any purpose other than for use in this case
and in the related case pending in the District of Connecticut.
6. 	Nothing in this Order may be interpreted as altering or diminishing Defendants’
burden (as established in the controlling cases) of demonstrating that public
disclosure of a particular document would result in an injury sufficiently serious to
warrant protection at the phase of the case at which the right of public disclosure is
asserted. See Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Shell Oil. Co., Civil No. 3:21-cv-
00933 (JAM), 2023 WL 5567614, at *1-3 (D. Conn. May 16, 2023).
Case 1:17-cv-00396-JJM-PAS Document 309 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Based on the foregoing, the Court grants in part and denies in part CLF’s motion to
challenge Defendants’ confidentiality designations (ECF No. 283).
/s/ Patricia A. Sullivan
PATRICIA A. SULLIVAN
United States Magistrate Judge
January 27, 2026
Case 1:17-cv-00396-JJM-PAS Document 309 Filed 01/27/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>