Zakat et al v. Highline School District et al

Filing 24

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 22 Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Court Docket; denying 23 Plaintiff's Third Motion for Reconsideration. The court will order the clerk to seal docket numbers 1-2 and 4-1, both of which are copies of the unredacted exhibit, by Judge James L. Robart. (documents sealed) (MD, mailed copy of order to pltf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

AALIYAH ZAKAT,

CASE NO. C13-0010JLR

Plaintiff,

11

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL
COURT DOCKET AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.

12

HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT,

13
14

Defendant.

15

I.

16

INTRODUCTION

Before the court are Plaintiff Aaliyah Zakat’s (1) motion to seal the entire docket

17 with respect to this proceeding (Dkt. # 22) and (2) third motion for reconsideration (Dkt.
18 # 23). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motions, the record, and the applicable law, the court
19 GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Ms. Zakat’s motion to seal and DENIES Ms.
20 Zakat’s third motion for reconsideration.
21 //
22 //
ORDER- 1

1

II.

ANALYSIS

2

A. Motion to Seal

3

Ms. Zakat asks the court to seal “all documents pertaining to this case.” (Mot. to

4 Seal (Dkt. # 22) at 1.) Ms. Zakat asserts that she “will not accept this court record
5 involving a minor child to be displayed to the general public.” (Id.) Federal Rule of
6 Civil Procedure 5.2 requires that “in an electronic or paper filing with the court that
7 contains . . . the name of an individual known to be a minor, . . . a party . . . making the
8 filing may include only . . . the minor’s initials . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 (a)(3); see also
9 Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 5.2(a)(2) (stating that parties shall redact the names of
10 minor children “to the initials”). Unfortunately, Ms. Zakat filed her complaint in
11 violation of this rule. The court notes that although Ms. Zakat’s complaint does not
12 contain the name of the minor child (see Dkt. ## 1-1, 4), the exhibit to her complaint does
13 in at least two places (see Dkt. ## 1-2 at 16, 24; 4-1 at 16, 24). Accordingly, the court
14 will grant in part Ms. Zakat’s motion to seal, as follows: The court orders Ms. Zakat to
15 file a copy of the exhibit to her complaint with the name of the minor child (and nothing
16 more) redacted within seven days of the date of this order. Following receipt of the
17 redacted version of the exhibit, the court will order the clerk to seal docket numbers 1-2
18 and 4-1, both of which are copies of the unredacted exhibit.
19

The court, however, denies Ms. Zakat’s motion to seal to the extent that she seeks

20 the sealing of all documents on the docket. Under the court’s Local Rules, “[t]here is a
21 strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Local Rules W.D. Wash.
22 LCR 5(g). To rebut this presumption, a party must file a motion that includes:
ORDER- 2

1
2
3
4
5

(A) a certification that the party has met and conferred with all other parties
in an attempt to reach agreement on the need to file the document under
seal, to minimize the amount of material filed under seal, and to explore
redaction and other alternatives to filing under seal; this certification
must list the date, manner, and participants of the conference.
(B) a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for
keeping a document under seal, with evidentiary support from
declarations where necessary.

6 Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 5(g)(3). Thus, the burden is on the moving party to come
7 forward with an applicable legal standard justifying the sealing of the documents at issue
8 and to produce evidentiary support showing that the standard is met. See id.
9

Ms. Zakat’s motion does not comply with Local Rule LCR 5(g)(3)(A) or (B). Ms.

10 Zakat has not given any indication that she has met and conferred with Defendant to
11 discuss any of the topics listed in Local Rule LCR 5(g)(3)(A). (See Mot.) As a result,
12 Ms. Zakat also has not listed the date, manner, or participants in the conference. (See id.)
13 Ms. Zakat also has not provided a “specific statement of the legal standard and the
14 reasons for keeping [the] document[s] under seal.” See Local Rules W.D. Wash.
15 LCR 5(g)(3). Accordingly, the court denies Ms. Zakat’s motion to seal to the extent she
16 seeks to place all documents on the docket under seal.
17

B. Motion for Reconsideration

18

Ms. Zakat has once again asked the court to reconsider its ruling on subject matter

19 jurisdiction. (Mot. to Recon. (Dkt. # 23).) On March 11, 2013, the court entered an order
20 dismissing this action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (3/11/13
21 Order (Dkt. # 11).) On March 20, 2013, Ms. Zakat filed a motion (Dkt. # 15), which the
22 court construed as a motion for reconsideration of its March 11, 2013, order (see 4/11/13
ORDER- 3

1 Order (Dkt. # 16) at 1). In response to Ms. Zakat’s motion, the court called for additional
2 submissions by the parties with respect to subject matter jurisdiction. (See generally id.)
3 Ms. Zakat failed to timely file additional documentation or materials regarding subject
4 matter jurisdiction as required by the court. (See generally 4/24/13 Order (Dkt. # 18).)
5 Accordingly, the court denied her motion for reconsideration and dismissed her action
6 without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Id. at 3.) Ms. Zakat then filed
7 two more motions “for clarification” and “for jurisdictional submission” (see Dkt. ## 19,
8 20), which the court liberally construed together as a motion for reconsideration of its
9 April 24, 2013, order. (See 5/7/13 Order (Dkt. # 21) at 1.) The court denied these
10 motions as well. (See generally id.) Ms. Zakat has now filed a third motion for
11 reconsideration of the court’s ruling on subject matter jurisdiction.
12

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR

13 7(h)(1). The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of
14 manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could
15 not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Id. Ms. Zakat
16 has provided nothing new in her present motion for reconsideration. (See generally Mot.
17 to Recon.) She has failed to make either showing required under the court’s Local Rules,
18 and accordingly, the court denies her motion for reconsideration. 1
19
20

1

In addition, a motion for reconsideration must be brought within fourteen days of the
date of the order to which it relates. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(2). The court’s last
21
order was dated May 7, 2013. (See 5/7/13 Order.) Ms. Zakat’s motion was not filed until May
24, 2013—more than 14 days later. Accordingly, Ms. Zakat’s failure to timely file her motion
22 provides a second basis for the court’s ruling denying her motion. See Local Rules W.D. Wash.
ORDER- 4

1

Finally, due in part to Ms. Zakat’s pro se status, the court has endeavored to

2 patiently and repeatedly explain in detail the basis for its rulings on subject matter
3 jurisdiction and on Ms. Zakat’s motions for reconsideration. (See, e.g., 3/11/13 Order;
4 4/11/13 Order; 4/24/13 Order; 5/7/13 Order.) There is, however, no basis in the Federal
5 Rules of Civil Procedure or in the court’s Local Rules for multiple motions for
6 reconsideration with respect to the same ruling. The court, therefore, warns Ms. Zakat
7 that further motions for reconsideration with respect to its ruling on subject matter
8 jurisdiction may subject her to the entry of sanctions, including monetary sanctions, by
9 the court.
10
11

III.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Ms.

12 Zakat’s motion to seal (Dkt. # 22), and DENIES her motion for reconsideration (Dkt.#
13 23). The court further warns Ms. Zakat that the filing of additional motions for
14 reconsideration of the court’s ruling on subject matter jurisdiction may result in the
15 court’s imposition of sanctions as described above.
16

Dated this 30th day of May, 2013.

17

19

A

20

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

18

21
LCR 7(h)(2) (“Failure to comply with this subsection may be grounds for denial of the

22 motion.”).

ORDER- 5