CASCADE YARNS, INC. v. KNITTING FEVER, INC. et al

Filing 590

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS TO SEAL; denying pltf's 446 Motion to Seal; Clerk directed to unseal document 449 ; denying pltf's 467 Motion to Seal; Clerk directed to unseal document 470 ; striking pltf's 473 Motion to Seal; granting pltf's 477 Motion to Seal; striking pltf's 483 Motion to Seal by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12

CASCADE YARNS, INC., a Washington
corporation,
CASE NO. C10-861RSM

13

Plaintiff,
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL

14
15
16

v.
KNITTING FEVER, INC., a New York
corporation, et al.,

17
18
19

Defendants.
This matter is before the Court for consideration of five of plaintiff’s pending motions to seal
documents. Dkt. ## 446, 467, 473, 477, and 483. The Court finds and rules as follows:

20

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal, Dkt. # 446

21

No party has either supported or opposed plaintiff’s motion to seal filed at Dkt. # 446.

22

Accordingly, this motion to seal is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to UNSEAL the document filed

23

at Dkt. # 449.

24

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal, Dkt. # 467

25

Plaintiff has asked to seal Exhibit P to the declaration of Robert J. Guite, filed at Dkt. #470.

26

Defendants have asserted that this document should remain under seal because it is designated

27
28

ORDER - 1

1

“confidential” by the producing party. However, the Court will not grant broad authority to file

2

documents under seal simply because the parties have designated them as confidential in the course of

3

discovery. “There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files and records which may be

4

overcome only on a compelling showing that the public’s right of access is outweighed by the interests

5

of the public and the parties in protecting files, records, or documents from public review.” Local Rule

6

CR 5(g)(2). While the parties may agree on confidentiality among themselves, when they ask for the

7

involvement of the Court in sealing documents, they must make the requisite showing as to each

8

document.

9

Exhibit P comprises an invoice and a copy of some yarn labels. Neither document represents

10

proprietary information nor trade secrets. The motion to seal (Dkt. # 467) is accordingly DENIED. The

11

Clerk is directed to UNSEAL the document filed at Dkt. # 470.

12

(3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal, Dkt. # 473

13

This motion relates to Exhibit E to the Declaration of Robert J. Guite, filed at Dkt. # 476.

14

Defendants have responded to assert that this document should remain under seal. Dkt. # 498. They

15

have also pointed out that plaintiff’s motion fails to reference this exhibit, but plaintiff has corrected that

16

error by filing a notice of errata. Dkt. # 499. However, the document does not relate to the subject for

17

which it is referenced. Plaintiff’s motion asserts that “Documents produced indicate that many more

18

tests exist from Chinese, American, and Italian labs.” Cascade’s Motion to Compel, Dkt. # 499, p. 6.

19

Exhibit E is an e-mail chain related to ordering, pricing, and supply. The parties, and particularly

20

plaintiff, have been cautioned previously regarding filing documents as exhibits unless the document is

21

actually referenced in the motion. The Court now extends that caution to include documents which do

22

not represent the substance for which they are cited. The Court shall adopt defendants’ suggestion that

23

this document should be stricken. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to MAINTAIN UNDER SEAL

24

the document filed at Dkt. # 476.

25

(4) Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal, Dkt. # 477

26

This motion relates to Exhibit A to the Declaration of Robert J. Guite, filed at Dkt. # 480.

27

Defendants contend that this document contains highly sensitive information that should remain under

28

ORDER - 2

1

seal. The Court agrees. Plaintiff’s motion to seal at Dkt. # 477 is accordingly GRANTED. The Clerk

2

is directed to MAINTAIN UNDER SEAL the document filed at Dkt. # 480.

3

(5) Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal, Dkt. # 483

4

This motion relates to Exhibit E to the Declaration of Robert J. Guite, filed at Dkt. # 484. This is

5

the same document as addressed in paragraph (3) above, and the same result shall obtain. The document

6

does not stand for the proposition for which it is cited by plaintiff in the corresponding motion to

7

compel. See, Notice of Errata, Dkt. # 500, p. 2. It shall accordingly be stricken. The Clerk is directed

8

to MAINTAIN UNDER SEAL the document filed at Dkt. # 484.

9

DATED this 21 day of February 2012.

10

A

11

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER - 3