Kim v. Coach, Inc, et al

Filing 29

RESPONSE, by Plaintiff Gina Kim, to 22 MOTION to Seal. (Carney, Christopher)

Gina Kim vs. Coach, Inc., et al.

Doc. 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Cause No. 2:11-CV-00214 RSM PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO COACH, INC.'S MOTION TO SEAL - 1
CARLSON LEGAL 100 W. HARRISON ST. SUITE N440 SEATTLE, WA 98119 [phone]

THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE GINA KIM, on behalf of a class consisting of ) Cause No. 2:11-CV-00214 RSM herself and all other persons similarly situated, ) ) PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO COACH, Plaintiffs, ) INC.'S MOTION TO SEAL ) vs. ) NOTED FOR CONSIDERATION APRIL 8, ) 2011 COACH, INC., a Maryland corporation, and ) COACH SERVICES, INC., a Maryland ) corporation, ) ) Defendants. )

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

On March 28, 2011, Coach filed its opposition to counterclaim defendant's anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike. In its accompanying Motion to Seal, Coach requests that this Court grant it leave to seal its entire legal brief, and the entire supporting declaration of John Macaluso, with all attached exhibits. Coach's request to seal every single word of its opposition brief and every single word of supporting evidentiary materials is grossly overbroad and not in compliance with LR 5(g). LR 5(g)(3) provides that "The Court will allow parties to file entire memoranda under seal only in rare circumstances." It also provides that "[i]f possible, a party should protect sensitive information by redacting documents rather than seeking to file them under seal." LR 5(g). There are no "rare circumstances" here. In its SLAPP defamation suit, Coach sued opposing counsel for in public, for all to see. Now that Coach has been called to account in an anti-SLAPP proceeding, it seeks to keep secret every word of its explanation for this conduct. Coach has made no showing as to why its legal arguments, discussing case law, should be sealed. Coach has made no showing as to why written statements received from third parties, which are obviously not confidential, should be sealed. Coach has made no showing as to why its allegations against opposing counsel, which it has included in at least two public filings, should now be sealed. We respectfully request that the Court deny Coach's overbroad request to seal their entire filing, and direct Coach to submit a redacted public filing, allowing Coach to file under seal only those matters which are truly appropriate for filing under seal. DATED this _____ day of March, 2010. /S/ Christopher Carney, WSBA No. 30325 Carney Gillespie Isitt PLLP Jay S. Carlson, WSBA No. 30411 Carlson Legal Jason Moore Van Eyk & Moore, PLLC 100 W. Harrison St., Suite N440 Seattle, WA 98119 Cause No. 2:11-CV-00214 RSM REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR SANCTIONS - 2
CARLSON LEGAL 100 W. HARRISON ST. SUITE N440 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119 [phone]