Uchytil v. Avanade Inc et al

Filing 181

MINUTE ORDER re parties' 160 Stipulated MOTION to File Exhibits Under Seal and parties' 176 Stipulated MOTION to File Exhibits Under Seal. It is not readily apparent to the Court why these documents are confidential, what portions of the documents contain sensitive information, or why redaction was not a sufficient alternative to sealing. Defendants are ORDERED to provide a response to the stipulated motions identifying and addressing these questions for the relevant documents they designated as confidential. Authorized by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

MARIA UCHYTIL, on behalf of the
United States of America,

CASE NO. C12-2091-JCC
MINUTE ORDER

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12
13

AVANDE INC., a Washington corporation,
et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17
18

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C.
Coughenour, United States District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ stipulated motions to seal (Dkt. Nos.

19

160, 176) exhibits to Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ motions to exclude testimony (Dkt.

20

Nos. 152, 154) and for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 178). The exhibits at issue (Dkt. Nos. 164,

21

167, 180) are documents produced by Defendants, the Federal Government, and the Federal

22

Home Loan Bank of Chicago (“FHLBC”). (Dkt. No. 176 at 1.) The producing parties have

23

marked the documents as confidential pursuant to the operative protective order in this case.

24

The parties’ protective order does not presumptively entitle information designated as

25

confidential to be filed under seal. (Dkt. No. 110 at 1–2.) This district’s Local Civil Rules require

26

a party who designates a document as confidential to provide legal and factual justification for
MINUTE ORDER
C12-2091-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

sealing such a document when it is offered by an opposing party. W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R.

2

5(g)(3). The seventy-six documents Plaintiff seeks to file under seal include a number of

3

deposition transcripts, responses to interrogatories, and an expert report, among other business

4

documents. (See Dkt. Nos. 164, 167, 180.) It is not readily apparent to the Court why these

5

documents are confidential, what portions of the documents contain sensitive information, or

6

why redaction was not a sufficient alternative to sealing. Defendants are ORDERED to provide a

7

response to the stipulated motions identifying and addressing these questions for the relevant

8

documents they designated as confidential. This response must comply with Local Civil Rule

9

5(g)(3)(B) and make a showing as to why redaction is not an acceptable alternative to sealing.

10

DATED this 7th day of June 2018.

11
12

William M. McCool
Clerk of Court

13

s/Tomas Hernandez
Deputy Clerk

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MINUTE ORDER
C12-2091-JCC
PAGE - 2