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

Filing 854

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL; denying 714 Motion to Seal; denying 725 Motion to Seal; denying 747 Motion to Seal; denying 756 Motion to Seal; denying 766 Motion to Seal; granting 776 Motion to Seal ; clerk directed to unseal documents 730, 731, 748, 752, 761 by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 CASCADE YARNS, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, 9 10 ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL v. 11 CASE NO. C10-861RSM KNITTING FEVER, INC., et al., 12 Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs/Third-Party Plaintiffs, 13 14 v. 15 ROBERT DUNBABIN, SR., et al., 16 17 Third-Party Defendants. CASCADE YARNS, INC., 18 Plaintiff, 19 20 v. EMMEPIEFFE S.R.L., a foreign limited liability corporation, 21 Defendant. 22 23 This matter is before the Court for consideration of the parties’ pending motions to seal 24 documents. Dkt. ## 714, 725, 747, 756, 766, and 776. As to these motions, the Court finds and rules as 25 follows: 26 (1) The Court will not grant broad authority to file documents under seal simply because the 27 28 ORDER - 1 1 parties have designated them as confidential in the course of discovery. “There is a strong presumption 2 of public access to the court’s files and records which may be overcome only on a compelling showing 3 that the public’s right of access is outweighed by the interests of the public and the parties in protecting 4 files, records, or documents from public review.” Local Rule CR 5(g)(2). Because motions to seal often 5 involve documents designated as “confidential” by the opposing party, they are noted on the calendar so 6 that the opposing party has an opportunity to provide a basis for maintaining the documents under seal, 7 as required by Local Rule 5(g). Where no response to the motion is filed, there is no basis for 8 maintaining the document under seal unless it is provided with the original motion. 9 10 (2) Defendant’s Motion to Seal, Dkt. # 714 Defendants have moved to seal Exhibits 3 and 11 to the Declaration of Joshua Slavitt, filed at 11 Dkt. # 716. The exhibits are filed under seal at Dkt. ## 730 and 731. Plaintiff has not responded to 12 support the motion. Accordingly, this motion to seal is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to UNSEAL 13 the documents filed at Dkt. ## 730 and 731. 14 (3) Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal, Dkt. # 725 15 Plaintiff has asked to seal Exhibits A, P, V, K, and AA to the declaration of Robert J. Guite, filed 16 at Dkt. #726. The exhibits are filed under seal at Dkt. # 728, and comprise over 400 pages of material, 17 including answers to interrogatories, deposition transcripts, expert reports, resumes, and test results. 18 Defendants have responded to the motion, asserting that they were not consulted prior to this filing by 19 plaintiff, that it includes a great many pages of material that were not designated as confidential, and 20 that confidentiality of relevant portions could have been appropriately addressed by redaction. Nowhere 21 did plaintiff explain why redaction was not feasible. Local Rule CR 5(g)(3). Accordingly, the motion 22 to seal (Dkt. # 725) is DENIED, and the documents filed at Dkt. # 728 are STRICKEN for violation of 23 Local Rule CR 5(g)(3). Plaintiff may refile these exhibits with redactions as appropriate, according to 24 the representations made by defendants in their response. The Clerk is directed to MAINTAIN 25 UNDER SEAL the stricken document filed at Dkt. # 728. 26 (4) Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal, Dkt. # 747 27 Plaintiff has moved to seal the brief in opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, 28 ORDER - 2 1 together with a portion of Exhibit A to the Declaration of Robert J. Guite, filed at Dkt. ## 748, 752. 2 Defendants have not responded to assert that these filings should remain under seal. Accordingly, this 3 motion to seal (Dkt. # 747 is DENIED. The Clerk shall unseal the documents filed by plaintiff at 4 Dkt. ## 748 and 752. 5 (5) Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal, Dkt. # 756 6 This motion relates to Exhibit A to another Declaration of Robert J. Guite, filed at Dkt. # 760. 7 The sealed exhibit is filed at Dkt. # 761. Defendants have not responded to assert that this exhibit should 8 remain under seal. Accordingly, this motion to seal (Dkt. # 756 is DENIED. The Clerk shall unseal 9 the exhibit filed by plaintiff at Dkt. # 761. 10 (6) Defendants’ Motion to Seal, Dkt. # 766 11 Defendants have moved to seal Exhibits 2 and 5 to the Declaration of Joshua Slavitt, which is 12 filed at Dkt. # 768. Robert Dunbabin, Sr., has filed a declaration in support of maintaining Exhibit 2 13 under seal (see Dkt. # 783). However, it appears from the docket that defendants have not actually filed 14 Exhibits 2 and 5 to the Declaration of Joshua Slavitt, so the Court cannot make a determination as to 15 whether the document should be sealed. This motion to seal (Dkt. # 766) is accordingly DENIED, 16 without prejudice to renewal. 17 (7) Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal, Dkt. # 776 18 Plaintiff has moved to seal Exhibit F to the Declaration of Robert J. Guite, which is filed at Dkt. 19 # 779. The sealed exhibit is filed at Dkt. # 780. Plaintiff has properly supported the motion with a 20 declaration which provides a basis for maintaining this third-party document under seal. Dkt. # 777. 21 The motion to seal at Dkt. # 776 is accordingly GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to MAINTAIN 22 UNDER SEAL Exhibit F, which is filed at Dkt. # 780. 23 24 25 (8) The Clerk is directed to unseal the documents indicated above three days after the date this Order is filed, unless the filing party has before then filed notice that the document shall be withdrawn. DATED October 15, 2012. 26 A RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 ORDER - 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?