Chase Catering and Concessions, LLC v. Delaware North Companies Travel Hospitality Services, Inc.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CHASE CATERING AND
CONCESSIONS, LLC.

VERSUS
DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES
TRAVEL HOSPITALITY SERVICES,
INC.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-2359
SECTION: “J”(3)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Leave to File Exhibit Under Seal (Rec. Doc.
14) filed by Defendant Areas Travel Hospitality Services, LLC, f/k/a Delaware North
Companies Travel Hospitality Services, Inc., with an incorporated memorandum in
support of the motion. After considering the motion, the memorandum, the record,
and the applicable law, the Court finds that the motion should be DENIED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This dispute arises out of an alleged breach of contract between the parties.
(Rec. Doc. 15-1, at 3). On October 3, 2016, the parties entered into a Joint Venture
Agreement to operate concessions at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International
Airport. (Rec. Doc. 15-1, at 2).
Defendant’s motion relates to their Memorandum in Support of their Motion
to Dismiss, or, Alternatively, Motion for a More Definite Statement. (Rec. Doc. 15-1).
Defendant asks this Court for leave to file the entire Joint Venture Agreement under
seal. (Rec. Doc. 14-1, at 3). Defendant filed a proposed order which does not provide
any explanation for why the document should be sealed. (Rec. Doc. 14-2).
Case 2:25-cv-02359-CJB-EJD Document 18 Filed 08/04/26 Page 1 of 5

2

LEGAL STANDARD
The Fifth Circuit has expressed that the public has a meaningful interest in
every document filed in the judicial records. See e.g., June Med. Serv., L.L.C. v.
Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 519-20 (5th Cir. 2022). “‘Judicial records belong to the
American people; they are public, not private, documents,’ and ‘[t]he public’s right of
access to judicial records is a fundamental element of the rule of law.’” Id. (citations
omitted). Accordingly, courts should be “ungenerous with their discretion to seal
judicial records” because “legal arguments, and the documents underlying them,
belong in the public domain.” Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 418-21
(5th Cir. 2021); see also N. Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co., Ltd. v. Cigna Healthcare,
781 F.3d 182, 203-04 (5th Cir. 2015) (finding that “[t]he district court's discretion to
seal records ‘is to be exercised charily’” (citing Macias v. Aaron Rents, Inc., 288 Fed.
Appx. 913, 915 (5th Cir. 2008))).
Therefore, the working presumption is that judicial records should not be
sealed, and courts must undertake a “case-by-case, document-by-document, line-by-
line balancing of the public’s common law right of access against the interests
favoring disclosure.” Accordingly, the party seeking to overcome the presumption of
public access bears the burden to show that its privacy interests outweigh the
presumption, and the court should construe any doubt in favor of disclosure. See
Weiss v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 06-3774, 2007 WL 2377119, at *4 (E.D. La. Aug. 16,
2007) (Vance, J.) (citing Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc., 998 F.2d 157,
Case 2:25-cv-02359-CJB-EJD Document 18 Filed 08/04/26 Page 2 of 5

3

165 (3d Cir. 1993); Marcus v. St. Tammany Par. Sch. Bd., No. 95-3140, 1997 WL
313418, at *5 (E.D. La. June 9, 1997)).
However, courts have recognized that while there is a presumption of public
access to judicial records, this access is not absolute. S.E.C. v. Van Waeyenberghe, 990
F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,
597, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 1312 (1978)). According to the Fifth Circuit, a court may seal
documents when they contain confidential business information. See N. Cypress, 781
F.3d at 203-04. Even so, the Fifth Circuit has held that a decision to seal is not
properly predicated on a movant’s mere allegations that documents contain
confidential material. Id. Instead, in order for a document to be sealed, the movant
must not only point to specific confidential information contained in the document,
but must also show the specific harm that would be suffered if the public were granted
access to this document. Id.; see also Weiss, 2007 WL 2377119, at *4 (“Absent
elucidation from Allstate as to the specific information in these exhibits that should
remain confidential, the Court refuses to seal them in their entirety based on a
general request to do so.”); Lilheberg v. Enter. Inter., LLC v. Vista Hosp. of Baton
Rouge, Inc., No. 04-2780, 2005 WL 1309158, at *2 (E.D. La. May 19, 2005) (denying
the defendants’ motion to seal a deposition because defendants give no specifics as to
what harm would come to them if this information is not sealed.”). Therefore, even
when a document allegedly contains confidential information, the sealing of a
document is not warranted when the party requesting that the document be sealed
Case 2:25-cv-02359-CJB-EJD Document 18 Filed 08/04/26 Page 3 of 5

4

“does not identify any particular confidential information in the [document] that may
cause it harm.” N. Cypress, 781 F.3d at 204.
Further, this Court’s Local Rule 5.6 governs the “Procedure for Filing
Documents Under Seal.” LR 5.6(D) explains
Any motion for filing materials under seal (including pleadings, motions,
briefs, or attachments thereto) must be accompanied by a non
confidential supporting memorandum, and a proposed order. The
proposed order must recite the findings required by governing case law
to support the proposed sealing.

DISCUSSION
The Court finds that Defendant’s motion should be denied for the following
reasons. First, although the Fifth Circuit recognizes that a document may be sealed
if it contains confidential business information, Defendant has failed to identify the
specific information in the document that is confidential. Instead, Defendant
requests that the entire document be filed under seal. Further, Defendant has
failed to explain what harm would result if the information were not sealed.
Therefore, Defendant has failed to satisfy its burden of showing that its privacy
interests outweigh the presumption of public access.
Second, even if Defendant satisfied its burden, the motion would still be
denied because Defendant failed to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 5.6.
Specifically, Defendant failed to provide a proposed order that recites the
findings required by governing case law to support sealing.

Case 2:25-cv-02359-CJB-EJD Document 18 Filed 08/04/26 Page 4 of 5

5

CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Seal (Rec. Doc. 14)
is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 4th day of August, 2026

___________________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02359-CJB-EJD Document 18 Filed 08/04/26 Page 5 of 5