Hendricks & Lewis PLLC v. Clinton

Filing 59

ORDER granting in part and denying in part pltf's 46 Motion to Seal ; exhs O and U are to be unsealed at dkt 48 ; exhs R and T will remain sealed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

HENDRICKS & LEWIS, PLLC,

9
10
11
12

Plaintiff,
Case No. C12-0841RSL
v.
GEORGE CLINTON,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL

Defendant.

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

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Under Seal Exhibits O, R, T, and U to the Declaration of Katherine Hendricks.” Dkt. # 46.
Plaintiff seeks permission to file certain documents under seal because defendant
designated the documents or certain topics as confidential during discovery. Defendant has
not responded to the motion.
“There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files,” and,
absent a “compelling showing that the public’s right of access is outweighed by the
interests of the public and the parties,” a seal is not appropriate. Local Civil Rule 5(g)(2).
A party’s unilateral designation of a document as “confidential” does not, in and of itself,
establish the necessary “compelling showing” under Local Civil Rule 5(g)(2). The Court
will normally require the party opposing public dissemination to show that the information
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL - 1

1 is actually confidential, to discuss the possible implications of public disclosure, and to
2 address the public’s interest in access to these records. Because Mr. Clinton has until
3 recently been proceeding pro se, the Court has reviewed the relevant documents and finds
4 as follows:
5
6

Plaintiff’s motion to seal is GRANTED in part. Exhibits O and U are not

7 confidential. The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal both Exhibit O and Exhibit U at Dkt.
8 # 48. Out of an abundance of caution, Exhibits R and T will remain sealed. Future failures
9 to support a claim of confidentiality will be considered a waiver of the claim.
10
11

Dated this 26th day of October, 2012.

12

A

13
14

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

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

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL - 2