clerk of court mar 0 4 2009 company the …...unspecified "risk of terrorism." (sept. 15,...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

CITIZENS ADVOCATINGRESPONSIBLE ENERGY,

Case No. 09-0481

Appellant,

vs.

The Ohio Power Siting Board,

Appellee.

On Appeal from The Ohio Power SitingBoard, Case No. 07-0171-EL-BTX

MOTION OF APPELLANT CITIZENS ADVOCATING RESPONSIBLE ENERGYTO UNSEAL APPELLATE RECORD

Thomas J. Lee (0009529) (Counsel of Record)Julie A. Crocker (0081231)Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP200 Public Square, Suite 3500Cleveland, OH [email protected]@taftlaw.com(216) 241-2838 (telephone)(216) 241-3707 (facsimile)Attorneys for AppellantCitizens Advocating Responsible Energy

CL.I:i;i, it• .;i)i!t',TSUPREfULCUU"rt"I'i)F OHIO

MAr 0 4 2009

CLERK OF COURTSUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Richard Cordray, Attorney General of OhioDuane W. Luckey, Assistant Attorney GeneralChief, Public Utilities SeCtionOffice of the Attorney General of OhioPublic Utilities Section180 East Broad StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215-3793(614) 466-4395 (telephone)(614) 644-8764 (facsimile)Attorneys for AppelleeThe Ohio Power Siting Board

Christopher J. Schraff (0023030)Robert J. Schmidt (0062261)L. Bradfield Hughes (0070997)Porter Wright Morris & Arthur41 South High StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215(614) 227-2097 (telephone)(614) 227-2100 (facsimile)[email protected]@[email protected] for Intervening AppelleesAmerican Transmission Systems, Inc. andThe Cleveland Electric IlluminatingCompany

Appellant, Citizens Advocating Responsible Energy ("CARE"), by and through the

undersigned counsel, hereby moves this Honorable Court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIV,

Section 4, to unseal portions of the Record filed in this Court containing documents and

testimony that were sealed in the proceedings below. In light of Ohio's strong policy mandating

open records, as well as this Court's recent amendments to the Rules of Superintendence, the

portions of the record currently under seal should be made available to the public. A

Memorandum in Support of the instant Motion is attached hereto and incorporated herein by

reference.

Respectfully submitted,

omas J. Lee (0009529) (Counsel of Record)[email protected]

Julie A. Crocker (0081231)[email protected] Stettinius & Hollister LLP200 Public Square, Suite 3500Cleveland, OH 44114-2302(216) 241-2838 (telephone)(216) 241-3707 (facsimile)

Attorneys for AppellantCitizens Advocating Responsible Energy

80194916.1

2

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

CITIZENS ADVOCATING RESPONSIBLEENERGY,

Case No. 09-0481

Appellant,

vs.

The Ohio Power Siting Board,

Appellee.

On Appeal from The Ohio Power SitingBoard, Case No. 07-0171-EL-BTX

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF APPELLANT CITIZENSADVOCATING RESPONSIBLE ENERGY TO UNSEAL APPELLATE RECORD

Thomas J. Lee (0009529) (Counsel of Record)Julie A. Crocker (0081231)Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP200 Public Square, Suite 3500Cleveland, OH 441 1 4-23 [email protected]@taftlaw.com(216) 241-2838 (telephone)(216) 241-3707 (facsimile)Attorneys for AppellantCitizens Advocating Responsible Energy

Richard Cordray, Attorney General of OhioDuane W. Luckey, Assistant Attorney GeneralChief, Public Utilities SectionOffice of the Attomey General of OhioPublic Utilities Section180 East Broad StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215-3793(614) 466-4395 (telephone)(614) 644-8764 (facsimile)Attorneys for AppelleeThe Ohio Power Siting Board

Christopher J. Schraff (0023030)Robert J. Schmidt (0062261)L. Bradfield Hughes (0070997)Porter Wright Morris & Arthur41 South High StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215(614) 227-2097 (telephone)(614) 227-2100 (facsimile)[email protected]@[email protected] for Intervening AppelleesAmerican Transniission Systems, Inc. andThe Cleveland Electric IlluminatingCompany

I. INTRODUCTION

This Court should unseal the portions of the record filed in this Court containing

documents and hearing transcripts that were placed under seal during the proceeding below.

Over the strong objections of Appellant, Citizens Advocating Responsible Energy ("CARE"), a

significant number of key documents and certain key testimony in this case were placed under

seal by Administrative Law Judge Janet Stoneking (the "ALJ"), who was designated as the

hearing officer for this case by Appellee, the Ohio Power Siting Board (the "Board").

Subsequently, the Board filed those documents and that testimony in this Court under seal.

Because the ALJ improperly ordered that these documents and transcripts be shielded from the

public, this Court should issue an order unsealing all documents, hearing transcripts, and exhibits

in the record that are currently under seal.

IL FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On September 28, 2007, pursuant to Revised Code Chapter 4906, Appellee American

Transmissions System Incorporated ("ATSI") and Appellee The Cleveland Electric Illuminating

Company ("CEI") jointly filed an Application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility

and Public Need, to construct a high voltage transmission line in Geauga County (the

"Application"). The Application was subsequently revised on January 2, 2008.

After submitting the initial Application, ATSI and CEI filed a Motion for Protective

Order and filed purported "raw power flow base case information" under seal. (See October 1,

2007 Motion for Protective Order.) ATSI and CEI acknowledged in their Motion for Protective

Order that they were required to file this information as part of their Application but maintained

that the information was confidential "because it contained raw data on the design, structure and

condition of the transmission system owned and operated by ATSI." ATSI and CEI offered no

other explanation or rationale to justify their claim that the data ought to be shielded from public

80194915.12

view. (October 1, 2007 Motion for Protective Order at 2.) ATSI and CEI also stated that the

information constituted a "trade secret" but provided no analysis as to why the information

should be classified as such. (Id.)

ATSI and CEI filed additional information under seal on November 8, 2007 and on

November 26, 2007. With their November 8, 2007 and November 26, 2007 submissions, ATSI

and CEI filed two additional Motions for Protective Order that, like their first motion, offered

only conclusory statements regarding "confidentiality" and "trade secrets," but failed to explain

why the information should be exempted from public inspection. Some of the information filed

under seal by ATSI and CEI was required to be filed as part of the Application and some of the

information filed under seal was requested by the staff of the Board as part of its review of the

Application. (See Motions for Protective Orders.) All of the information was essential to

understanding the Application and in analyzing whether ATSI's and CEI's contentions regarding

the proposed transmission line were accurate. (CARE Hearing Exhibit F, pp. 27-30; CARE

Hearing Exhibit H, pp. 1-12.)

On January 15, 2008, CARE petitioned to become a party in the proceedings below to

challenge the locations proposed for the high voltage transmission line by ATSI and CEI. (See

March 3, 2008 Judgment Entry.) In her Journal Entry granting CARE's Petition to Intervene, the

ALJ also granted ATSI's and CEI's Motions for Protective Order.' (Id.) In her entry granting

the Motions for Protective Order, the ALJ ruled, without explanation or analysis, that the

information filed under seal by ATSI and CEI "constitutes a trade secret as contemplated by R.C.

t Thus, although the information was filed under seal, the Protective Order authorizing that filingwas not granted until approximately four months after the information was filed.

80194915.13

1331.61(B)."2 (Id.) No consideration was given as to whether some of the information could be

redacted and the rest allowed into the record, as required by the relevant Board regulations

regarding the submission of information under seal. See OAC 4906-7-07.

On September 12, 2008, CARE moved to lift the "seal orders," arguing that the

Applicants had failed to meet their burden to justify sequestering the documents from the public

view. In response, ATSI and CEI contended - for the first time - that the documents contained

"critical energy infrastructure information" that was protected from public disclosure by Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission Order No. 630 and that disclosure would constitute a vague and

unspecified "risk of terrorism." (Sept. 15, 2008 Response to Motion to Unseal Records.)

CARE's Motion to Unseal was addressed during the Adjudicatory Hearing. The ALJ

denied CARE's Motion to Unseal and ruled that the information filed under seal by ATSI and

CEI constitutes "critical energy infrastructure information" under because the documents and

information contained "specific engineering detailed level information." (See Sept. 16, 2008

Hearing Transcript, Volume I, pp. 9-10.) The AJL also ruled "[a]nything that has detailed level

engineering automatically is sealed here as [critical energy infrastructure information]." Id.

Neither the ALJ nor ATSI nor CEI provided any authority for this interpretation of "critical

energy infrastructure information."

Despite the ALJ's continuous rulings that certain documents and information were

inappropriate for public view, CARE again expressed its objections to filing documents under

seal when ATSI and CEI moved to have certain additional exhibits filed under seal during the

Adjudicatory Hearing. (Sept. 18, 2008 Hearing Transcript, Vol. III, pp. 57-58.) The ALJ once

2 Revised Code 1331.61(B) does not address trade secrets and the ALJ's citation to "R.C.1331.61(B)" reveals that she most likely relied on ATSI's and CEI's Motions for ProtectiveOrder, which also incorrectly cited to "R.C. 1331.61(B)."

80194915.14

again overruled CARE's objections and ordered that the exhibits designated as "confidential" by

ATSI and CEI were to be filed under seal, and further ordered that any portions of the hearing

transcripts that discussed those exhibits were also to be filed under seal. (Id. at 59.) Indeed, each

time anything claimed by ATSI or CEI to be "confidential" was discussed during the

Adjudicatory Hearing, the AL.I required all parties and attorneys who had not signed a

confidentiality agreement with ATSI and CEI to leave the hearing, and the transcript of the

record from those closed proceedings was then placed under seal. (Sept. 16, 2008 Hearing

Transcript, Vol. I, p. 49; Sept. 17, 2008 Hearing Transcript, Vol. II, p. 109; Oct. 1, 2008 Hearing

Transcript, Vol. IV, p. 9.)3 The AU even excluded one of the parties from the hearing because

he had declined to sign the confidentiality agreement required by ATSI and CEI. (Sept. 17, 2008

Hearing Transcript, Vol. II, p. 109.) Thus, wholesale portions of witness testimony were sealed

without any effort being made to redact only the information that ATSI and CEI claimed to be

"confidential" or without any rigorous analysis as to the legitimacy of that claim. In response to

CARE's objections that the information should not be shielded from the public, the ALJ simply

stated that the exhibits contained "proprietary" infonnation. (Sept. 18, 2008 Hearing Transcript,

Vol. III, p. 59.)

Thus, not only did the AU shield Application documents and information requested by

the Board as part of the Application froin the public, but certain portions of the Adjudicatory

Hearing were closed, and transcripts and exhibits were filed under seal, all based on the ALJ's

conclusory rulings that the sealed documents and testimony constituted proprietary, trade secret,

3 Because CARE would not accede to ATSI's and CEI's demand that CARE stipulate thatdisclosure of confidential information would cause ATSI and CEI "irreparable harm," CARE, itsattorneys and its expert witnesses were all prohibited from viewing any of the documents orinformation filed under seal by ATSI and CEI until August 8, 2008 just weeks prior to thecommencement of the Adjudicatory Hearing.

80194915.15

or critical energy infrastructure information. Significantly, as verified by CARE's expert

witnesses, the information that was placed under seal was essential to understanding and

evaluating the Application. (CARE Hearing Exhibit F, pp. 27-30; CARE Hearing Exhibit H, pp.

1-12.) By allowing ATSI and CEI to shield parts of the Application and nearly all of the key

technical information from public view, the fundamental nature of the proceedings below was

changed from a public proceeding to a proceeding where most of the key evidence was seen only

by those parties who had agreed to sign a confidentiality agreement prepared by ATSI and CEI.

Given this record, and the lack of justification therein for shielding this important

information from public view, and in light of this Court's recent amendments to the Rules of

Superintendence, this Court should order that all documents, exhibits, and transcripts currently

under seal be made publicly available. A list of all documents, exhibits, and transcripts that are

currently under seal (hereinafter, the "Sealed Information") is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is

incorporated herein by reference.

III. LAW AND ARGUMENT

A. Ohio's Open Records Act Mandates That The Sealed Information Be Made

Publicly Available.

Under Ohio's Public Records Act, public records are defined "as records kept by any

public office." R.C. 149.34. Dream Fields, LLC v. Bogart, 175 Ohio App.3d 165, 2008-Ohio-

152, ¶ 1, ¶3 (denying request to seal records, pleadings and transcripts because the records were

public records that "must remain open to the public"). It is well established that the public has

the right to inspect judicial records, and "unless an exception clearl exists, there is a strong

presumption that the records are public." Id. ¶ 2 (emphasis added). See also State ex rel.

Mothers Against Drunk Drivers v. Gosser (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 30, paragraph one of the

80194915.16

syllabus (holding that "[a]ny document appertaining to, or recording of, the proceedings of a

court" is a public record and "must be made available for public inspection").

The party wishing to seal a record in a proceeding bears the burden to prove that a

statutory exception applies to disclosure. Dream Fields, LLC, 2008-Ohio-152, at ¶ 5. Indeed,

any "[e]xceptions to disclosure under the Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, are strictl

construed against the public-records custodian, and the custodian has the burden to establish

the applicability of an exception." State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Jones-Kelley, 118 Ohio

St.3d 81, 2008-Ohio-1770, ¶ 10 (emphasis added). In this proceeding, ATSI and CEI

purportedly sought to seal documents under OAC 4906-7-07, yet they ignored the clear,

mandatory requirements of that regulation.

OAC 4906-7-07 sets forth stringent and detailed criteria that must be met before a

protective order to seal a part of the public record can be issued. It provides, that upon motion,

the administrative law judge assigned to the case may:

[I]ssue any order which is necessary to protect the confidentiality of informationcontained in the document ... where it is determined that both of the followingcriteria are met: [1] The information is deemed ... to constitute a trade secretunder Ohio law, and [2] [] non-disclosure of the information is not inconsistentwith the purpose of Title 49 of the Revised Code.

OAC 4906-7-07(H)(4) (emphasis added). Further the regulation requires a party, when filing an

order, to satisfy the following requirements:

(a) All documents submitted pursuant to paragraph (H) of this rule should

be filed with only such information redacted as is essential to prevent

disclosure of the allegedly confidential information.

(b) Three unredacted copies of the allegedly confidential information shallbe filed under seal, along with a motion for protection of the information.

(c) The motion for protection of allegedly confidential information shallbe accompanied by a memorandum in support setting forth the specific basisof the motion, including a detailed discussion of the need for protection from

80194915.17

disclosure, and citations of any authorities relied upon. The motion andmemorandum in support shall be made part of the public record of the proceeding.

OAC 4906-7-07(H)(4) (emphasis added).

ATSI and CEI made no effort in any of their three Motions for Protective Order to prove

why the information must be shielded from the public, let alone provide a "specific basis," a

"detailed discussion of the need for protection," or "citations of any authorities" OAC 4906-7-07

obligated them to do. Instead, ATSI and CEI summarily stated that the documents at issue

concemed the design, structure, and condition of the electric transmission system.

On September 12, 2008, CARE moved to unseal all of the information ATSI and CEI had

filed under seal. (See September 12, 2008 Motion to Unseal.) In denying CARE's motion, the

ALJ stated that the sealed information should remain shielded from the public because the

documents contained "engineering detailed level infonnation" reasoning that "[a]nything that has

detailed level engineering automatically is sealed [at PUCO]." (See Sept. 16, 2008 Hearing

Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 9-10.) The ALJ offered no detailed analysis and did not cite to any

authority to justify this interpretation.

In ruling on this issue, the ALJ disregarded that the definition of "critical energy

infrastructure information" was amended in 2007 and that the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission limited the definition "to minimize the amount of information which qualifies as

[critical energy infrastructure infonnation] " because `4nany submitters over utilize the

designation." See FERC Order No. 683, 18 C.F.R. 388 at 4. As a result, "critical energy

infrastructure information" is limited to include only "specific engineering, vulnerability, or

detailed design information about a proposed or existing critical infrastructure that:

(1) relates details about the production, generation, transportation, or distribution ofenergy;

(2) could be useful to a person in planning an attack on critical infrastructure;

80194915.18

(3) is exempt from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5U.S.C. 552 (2000); and

(4) does not simply give the general location of the critical infrastructure."

18 U.S.C. 388.113(c).

Neither ATSI nor CEI demonstrated that the sealed information fell within the scope of

this defmition, and the ALJ made no finding that any element - much less all elements - of this

definition was satisfied. Indeed, no evidence was presented and no finding was made that the

information shielded from the public fell within the scope of this definition, nor was the

definition of critical energy information even discussed. The ALJ simply concluded that because

the documents and exhibits contained "specific engineering detailed level information", they

should be sealed. (Sept. 16, 2008 Hearing Transcript, Vol. I, pp. 9-10.) This does not comport

with the law.

The ALJ also improperly placed exhibits and hearing transcripts under seal during the

Adjudicatory Hearing. ATSI and CEI contended that certain exhibits and testimony introduced

during the hearing should be sealed because they contained "critical energy infrastructure

information" and "proprietary trade secret" information, but provided no explanation or analysis

as to why the evidence at issue could not be seen by the public or fell within the scope of the

applicable definitions. (Hearing Transcript, Vol. III at 58.) The ALJ once again disregarded

CARE's objections to the shielding of this information and ordered that these "confidential"

exhibits and testimony be sealed because they contained "company proprietary information."

(Hearing Transcript, Vol. III at 58-59.)

Simply alleging that information is confidential or propriety is insufficient to overcome

the strong presumption that court records must be open to the public, and ATSI and CEI failed to

80194915.19

meet their burden of proving that any of the documents, exhibits, and transcripts filed under seal

in this Court should remain shielded from public view or inspection.

B. This Court's Recent Amendments To The Rules of Superintendence For TheCourts Of Ohio Lend Further Support To Unsealing The Record.

This Court's recent amendments to the Rules of Superintendence, which went into effect

on May 1, 2009, provide further support for making the Sealed Information publicly available.

Pursuant to Sup. R. 45, "[c]ourt records are presumed open to the public" and the court may

restrict public access to the information in the case document only if it finds "by clear and

convincing evidence that the presumption of allowing public access is outweighed by a higher

interest." Sup. R. 45(A) and (E)(2). In making this determination, the Court is to consider the

following factors:

(a) Whether public policy is served by restricting public access;

(b) Whether any state, federal, or common law exempts the document orinformation from public access;

(c) Whether factors that support restriction of public access exist, includingrisk of injury to persons, individual privacy rights and interests,proprietary business information, public safety, and fairness of theadjudicatory process.

Sup. R. 45(E)(2).

In the instant case, public policy is not served by restricting public access, and indeed the

public is harmed by being unable to view information which directly relates to and impacts their

rights as property owners of Geauga County. In this proceeding, ATSI and CEI, both of which

are for-profit corporations, seek to obtain eminent domain power from the Board to disrupt the

farmlands of Geauga County and construct a private 14 mile long energy corridor for their

exclusive use. If this project is authorized, ATSI and CEI will destroy numerous parcels of

property, many of them farms held by the same families for generations. Yet, the affected

80194915.110

property owners cannot even view critical evidence that ATSI and CEI have submitted to the

Board. This secrecy is all the more egregious because ATSI and CEI have failed to meet their

burden of proving that federal regulations or state laws mandate sealing the evidence at issue,

and the ALJ's ad. hoc definition that critical energy infrastructure information is "anything that

has detailed level engineering" and her conclusion that virtually all such information is to be

shielded from scrutiny simply ignores the law. Lastly, other than the ALJ's cursory conclusions

that certain "detailed level engineering" data could be "Used by anyone for whatever purpose"

and that certain documents are "company proprietary information", the record is devoid of

evidence that there is any risk of injury to persons or proprietary business information if the so

called "confidential" information is made publicly available. (See Sept. 16, 2008 Hearing

Transcript, Vol. I, p. 10; Sept. 18, 2008 Hearing Transcript, Vol. III, p. 59.)

C. The Least Restrictive Means Of Restricting Public Access Were Not

Considered.

Like OAC 4906-7-07, the Rules of Superintendence provide that when restricting public

access to a case document, a court shall use the least restrictive means available. This was not

done here. Instead, the ALJ placed under seal the entirety of any documents that ATSI and CEI

wished to shield from public view, and further placed under seal significant portions of

evidentiary testimony without giving any thought to the requirement that the least restrictive -

not the most restrictive - means of sealing should be employed.

The Rules of Superintendence suggest various steps that can be taken for information that

legitimately must be protected from pubic scrutiny, including the following:

(a) Redacting the information rather than limiting public access to the entire

(b)

document;

Restricting remote access to either, the document or the information whilemaintaining its direct access;

80194915.1lI

(c) Restricting public access to either the document or the information for aspecific period of time;

(d) Using a generic title or description for the document or the information ina case management system or register of actions;

(e) Using initials or other identifier for the parties' proper names.

Sup. R. 45(E)(3).

Less restrictive means of restricting public access were not used or even considered by

ATSI, CEI or the ALJ. Entire documents hearing exhibits were placed under seal by the ALJ

without any consideration or discussion as to whether only the "confidential" information

contained therein could be redacted. The ALJ even acknowledged when overruling CARE's

objections that not all of the information within particular "confidential" exhibits should be

protected, but that the exhibits should nevertheless be filed under seal because "the majority of

the information on here is what I would consider company proprietary information." (Sept. 18,

2008 Hearing Transcript, Vol. III, p. 59.) Thus, based on the AU's own admission, at least

some of the information currently being shielded from the public is neither confidential nor

proprietary. Moreover, using the least restrictive means to restrict public access would have

been consistent with the federal regulations that narrowed the scope of "critical energy

infrastructure information" because of the very abuses illustrated in this case.

ATSI and CEI were well aware of the Board regulations requiring that the least restrictive

means of shielding information be utilized, as indicated by their citation to and quotations of the

applicable regulation. However, ATSI and CEI simply ignored the requirement that the filings

should have "only such information redacted as is essential to prevent disclosure of the allegedly

confidential information." See OAC 4906-7-07.

ATSI and OEI therefore should not be permitted, at this late date, to reexamine all of the

information submitted and propose redactions of portions of that information in accordance with

89194915.112

OAC 4906-7-07 and Sup. R. 45(E). Such a ruling would lead only to protracted disagreements

about whether specific proposed redactions meet the required standards. ATSI and CEI, by

insisting that all information should be redacted, should now be required to live with their "all or

nothing" strategy and therefore all sealed information should be made available to the public.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, CARE respectfully requests that this Court unseal all

documents, information, exhibits, and hearing transcripts that are part of the record on appeal in

this case.

Respectfully submitted,

V (^(

omas J. Lee (0009529) (Counsel of Record)[email protected] A. Crocker (0081231)[email protected] Stettinius & Hollister LLP200 Public Square, Suite 3500Cleveland, OH 44114-2302(216) 241-2838 (telephone)(216) 241-3707 (facsimile)

Attorneys for AppellantCitizens Advocating Responsible Energy

80194915.113

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was served this 4th day of

May, 2009, via regular U.S. mail upon the following:

Richard CordrayDuane W. LuckeyOffice of the Attorney General of OhioPublic Utilities Section180 East Broad StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215-3793

Christopher SchraffRobert J. Schmidt, Jr.Porter Wright Morris & Arthur41 South High StreetColumbus, Ohio 43215

Attorneys for AppelleeThe Ohio Power Sitting Board

Attorneys for Intervening AppelleesAmerican Transmission SystemsIncorporated and the Cleveland ElectricIlluminating Company

the Attorneys for Appellant

80194915.114

EXHIBIT A

1. September 28, 2007 Submission of "Proprietary and Trade Information" (See alsoOctober 1, 2007 Motion for Protective Order).

2. November 8, 2007 Submission of "Proprietary Information" (See also November8, 2007 Motion for Protective Order).

3. November 26, 2007 Submission of "Supplemental Response to Staff's FirstInformal Data Request" (See also November 26, 2007 Motion for ProtectiveOrder).

4. "Confidential Excerpt" of September 16, 2008 Hearing Transcript - Volume 1.

5. "Confidential Excerpt" of September 17, 2008 Hearing Transcript - Volume 2.

6. "Confidential Excerpt" of October 1, 2008 Hearing Transcript - Volume 4.

7. Adjudicatory Hearing Exhibit CARE-Galm 24.














clerk of court mar 0 4 2009 company the …...unspecified "risk of terrorism." (sept. 15,...

Documents