Cockburn v. SMS Industries, Inc. dba McGill Inc. et al

Filing 104

ORDER by Judge Robert S. Lasnik; The Court will allow Pltf three days from the date of this Order to move the Court to allow Dkt. # 97 to remain under seal. (TF)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

SUSAN TIERNEY COCKBURN,

8

Plaintiff,
v.

9
10

Case No. C10-1566RSL
ORDER

SWS INDUSTRIES, INC. dba MCGILL,
INC., et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On March 30, 2012, Defendants

14

filed an exhibit (Dkt. # 97) under seal without prior permission of the Court and without

15

the accompanying motion otherwise required by Local Civil Rule 5(g). Accordingly,

16
17
18
19
20
21

the Court ordered Defendants to show cause as to why it should not direct the Clerk of
Court to unseal the exhibit. Dkt. # 100. On April 3, 2012, Defendants informed the
Court of their belief that the previously filed protective order pre-authorized the filing of
all documents designated “highly confidential” under seal.1 Dkt. # 101. Otherwise, they
informed the Court that they have no objection to the document being unsealed.
Again, to be clear, the protective order noted by Defendants does not reference,
much less pre-authorize, the filing of sealed documents. See Dkt. # 76. Any and all

22

documents filed with the Court will be accessible to the public unless an interested party

23

has made the necessary showing that the public’s right of access is outweighed by the

24
25
26

1

The Court notes that Defendants did not date their response as required by Local Civil
Rule 10(e)(4). In the future, undated filings will be stricken.
ORDER - 1

1

interests of the public and the parties in protecting the court’s files from public review as

2

to each individual document or exhibit. Local Civil Rule 5(g). If the parties understood

3

the prior order (Dkt. # 76) to confer anything different, that understanding was incorrect.

4
5
6
7

In any case, given Defendants’ position regarding what is apparently Plaintiff’s
document, the Court will allow Plaintiff three days from the date of this Order to move
the Court to allow Dkt. # 97 to remain under seal. If she elects to do so, Plaintiff is
directed to discuss with specificity the requirements set forth in Local Civil Rule 5(g).
Otherwise, the Court will direct the Clerk to unseal the document.

8
9

DATED this 5th day of April, 2012.

10
11

A

12

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

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

ORDER - 2