Avocent Redmond Corp v. Rose Electric Inc et al

Filing 385

ORDER denying Avocent's 364 Motion to Seal ; clerk directed to seal dkts 365-370 by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
_______________________________________
)
AVOCENT REDMOND CORP.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
ROSE ELECTRONICS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

Case No. C06-1711RSL
ORDER DENYING AVOCENT’S
MOTION TO SEAL (Dkt. # 364)

13

This matter comes before the Court on “Avocent’s Motion to Seal Documents.”
14

Dkt. # 364. Plaintiff seeks permission to file under seal a motion to compel discovery, the
15

supporting declaration, and six related exhibits. The documents contain financial information
16

that defendants Aten Technology Inc. and Aten International Co., Ltd., have designated as
17

Attorney’s Eyes Only under the terms of the protective order entered in this case. Plaintiff has
18

filed redacted versions of the motion and supporting declaration.
19

“There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files,” and, absent a
20

“compelling showing that the public’s right of access is outweighed by the interests of the public
21

and the parties,” a seal is not appropriate. Local Civil Rule 5(g)(2). In support of the request for
22

permission to redact portions of their motion and to file exhibits under seal, plaintiff simply
23

notes that the documents contain “financial information” that has been designated as confidential
24

by defendants. Not all financial information is confidential, however, and neither plaintiff nor
25

the producing parties have attempted to justify the designation or the proposed redactions/seal.
26

As the Court has previously noted, a party’s unilateral designation of a document as
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL

1

“confidential” does not, in and of itself, establish the necessary “compelling showing” under

2

Local Civil Rule 5(g)(2). In the absence of any discussion regarding the actual confidentiality of

3

the financial information, the possible implications of public disclosure, and the public’s interest

4

in access to these records, the Court will not assume that a seal is justified.

5
6
7

For all of the foregoing reasons, Avocent’s motion to seal (Dkt. # 364) is
DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal Dkt. # 365-370.

8
9

Dated this 4th day of April, 2012.

10
11

A
Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL

-2-