Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D. Ariz.: Documents unsealed in dispute between Honeywell and maintenance service provider, (May 14, 2014)

By Jeffrey May, J.D.

Honeywell International, Inc., the country’s largest manufacturer of auxiliary power units (APUs) for commercial aircraft, has failed to convince the federal district court in Arizona to keep sealed documents relating to summary judgment proceedings in an antitrust action brought by Aerotec International, Inc.—an independent provider of maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) services for APUs. Honeywell failed provide compelling reasons for continued secrecy (Aerotec International, Inc. v. Honeywell International, Inc., May 12, 2014, Sedwick, J.).

In March, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Honeywell on Aerotec's claims that Honeywell used its position as the predominant APU manufacturer and component parts supplier to engage in anticompetitive conduct in the MRO service market in violation of antitrust laws and price discrimination laws. The motions for summary judgment were supported by voluminous statements of fact filed under seal pursuant to a court-approved protective order jointly proposed by the parties. The matter is now on appeal, and Aerotec has asked the district court to unseal the documents relating to the summary judgment proceedings.

Honeywell did not oppose unsealing most of the sealed materials in dispute. However, it asked that certain materials remain sealed, including documents and information related to: non-public pricing and related terms of outstanding agreements and proposals between Honeywell and some of its airline customers; certain internal Honeywell documents; and Honeywell's use of standardized regional pricing.

Honeywell contended that it would be put at a competitive disadvantage if the information was disclosed. However, the company did not support this argument. Honeywell could not rely on the affidavit of an employee to bolster its claim of competitive disadvantage. The affidavit did not explain how Honeywell would be harmed by the disclosure. While the court noted that it could speculate that some harm to Honeywell would flow from disclosure, it refused to do so, noting that it was Honeywell’s obligation to provide compelling reasons for non-disclosure.

The case is 2:10-cv-00433 JWS.

Attorneys: Carson Thomas H. Emmons (Baird Williams & Greer LLP) for Aerotec International, Inc. Eric Michael Fraser (Osborn Maledon PA) for Honeywell International, Inc.

Companies: Aerotec International, Inc.; Honeywell International, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust ArizonaNews