Opinion
98 Civ. 5036 (RWS).
November 27, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Non-parties Michael Williamson, Kirk O'Donnell, John Lettow, Timothy McGinniss, Fred Newton, William Watson, Chris Hancock, Dale Schoeneman, the Estate of Don Craft, and International Deep Sea Survey, Inc. (the "Intervenors") have moved pursuant to Rule 24, Fed.R.Civ.P., to intervene in this sealed action for the purpose of vacating the sealing order entered at the request of the parties. The defendants in the action have submitted an affidavit and a memorandum in opposition to the motion. The plaintiffs have taken no position with respect to the application. For the reasons set forth below, the Intervenors are permitted to intervene for the purpose of seeking to vacate the sealing orders previously granted and their application for that relief is denied.
Permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b) is proper. That Rule provides in relevant part:
Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in a action . . . (2) when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common. . . . In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.
Here, what is common to the Intervenors and the original litigants is the validity of the protective order. Although the sealed action has been dismissed, the Court retains the power to modify the protective order. In re Application of the Akron Beacon Journal, No. 94 Civ. 1402 (CSH), 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5183, at *14-*15 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 1995); Westchester Radiological v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, 138 F.R.D. 33, 34 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). Intervenor's application is timely because there is no prejudice to the original litigants from any delay.
The file in this action consists of pleadings, the application for sealing and related documents, and a stipulation of dismissal. The application for sealing was based on the need to keep business and proprietary information of the parties confidential.
There is no demonstrated need at this time to vacate the previous sealing orders in view of the contents of the file consisting only of pleadings. It is assumed that the Intervenors are aware of the identity of the parties in view of the notice required to be given at the outset of this litigation.
Leave is granted to submit a further application in the event that a particularized showing can be made.
It is so ordered.