INGENCO Holdings, LLC, et al et al v. ACE American Insurance Company
Filing
122
ORDER terminating pltfs' 96 Motion to Seal and directing clerk to unseal documents specified in this order; clerk directed to desginate Guild Associates as an interested party by Judge Richard A Jones.(RS) cc Guild Assoc
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
INGENCO HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
10
11
12
CASE NO. C13-543RAJ
ORDER
v.
ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY,
13
Defendant.
14
I. INTRODUCTION
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
This matter comes before the court on review of the parties’ May 15 joint
statement (Dkt. # 107) on documents they have filed under seal. For the reasons stated
herein, the court directs the clerk to TERMINATE Plaintiffs’ motion to seal (Dkt. #96),
and to UNSEAL documents as specified in this order. The clerk shall also file on the
docket the May 21, 2015 letter the court received from third party Guild Associates and
designate Guild as an “interested party” on the docket. This order contains instructions to
the parties and to Guild as to the 16 documents that will remain under seal for now.
22
23
24
25
26
II. BACKGROUND
The parties’ joint statement includes a chart (Dkt. # 107-2) detailing the present
status of each of the 34 documents the parties have filed under seal. The court uses the
term “document” here to refer to any single exhibit to the many declarations the parties
have filed in support of their pending dispositive motions. Defendant has filed each such
27
28
ORDER – 1
1
document as a single entry or sub-entry on the docket. For example, the two documents
2
that are the subject of Defendant’s most recent motion to seal are at docket numbers 104
3
and 104-1, respectively. Plaintiffs, by contrast, have frequently filed many sealed
4
documents as a single docket entry. For example, eight documents that are the subject of
5
Plaintiffs’ second motion to seal (Dkt. # 90) are combined at docket number 91.
6
Defendant’s approach is the better one, because the court’s electronic filing system
7
permits it to seal or unseal any single docket entry or sub-entry; it does not permit sealing
8
or unsealing individual pages within a single docket entry.
9
The parties requested that the court seal the 34 documents solely to respect a
10
protective order between Guild and one of the Plaintiffs in litigation in the United States
11
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The parties have finally provided that
12
protective order to the court. The court’s review of the protective order and the
13
documents under seal strongly suggest that the parties have construed that protective
14
order far more broadly than is appropriate. As to many of the documents the parties filed
15
under seal, the court is aware of no credible argument for keeping them under seal.
16
Perhaps for that reason, the parties’ chart reveals that Guild has no objection to
17
unsealing many documents. It also reveals that as to some documents, Guild has
18
requested only minimal redactions. For example, Defendant filed under seal
19
approximately 30 pages excerpted from the deposition of Jeffrey Brown. The vast
20
majority of those pages suggested no basis at all for shielding them from public view.
21
Guild ultimately requested a single redaction of several lines on one page of the excerpts.
22
As to some documents, the extent of Guild’s objection (if any) is unknown. The
23
parties have revealed only that those documents are “under review” at Guild. Guild, in
24
response to the court’s April 28, 2015 minute order, sent a May 21 letter to the court
25
stating that it intended “to obtain local counsel and seek protection for its proprietary
26
scientific know-how and trade secrets” and would “file its motion seeking protection
27
within thirty (30) days of the date of [its] letter.”
28
ORDER – 2
1
In light of these developments, the court orders as follows:
2
1) The clerk shall UNSEAL the following 9 documents because the parties’ chart
3
indicates that Guild has no objection to their public filing: Dkt. ## 89-2, 89-4,
4
89-6, 89-7, 102, 102-1, 102-2, 104, and 104-1.
5
2) The clerk shall UNSEAL the following document because Defendant
6
erroneously filed it under seal. Dkt. # 84. (That document is a duplicate of a
7
document Defendant filed publicly. Dkt. # 82-1).
8
3) Plaintiffs have apparently filed 8 exhibits that were once under seal as public
9
documents, reflecting Guild’s consent to do so. In 2 instances, they have
10
apparently filed redacted versions of exhibits that were once under seal in their
11
entirety. The court says “apparently” because Plaintiffs filed these 10
12
documents on June 9 without any explanation. Dkt. ## 111-120. The docket
13
entries for those documents, however, describe the sealed exhibits that they are
14
apparently intended to replace. The net impact of these new filings is to unseal
15
8 documents and to substitute redacted versions of 2 others. The court cannot
16
actually unseal any of the documents, however, because each of them is part of
17
a single docket entry that contains other documents that will remain under seal
18
for now.
19
4) Defendant shall, no later than June 17, 2015, file publicly versions of the
20
following documents reflecting the redactions that Guild has requested. Dkt.
21
## 84-2, 84-3, 89, 89-1, 89-3, 89-5, and 102-3. Defendant shall file each of
22
these documents as a separate sub-entry within a single docket entry entitled
23
“Redacted Documents Filed Per June 11 Order.”
24
5) The net effect of the preceding paragraphs is to reduce the number of
25
documents under seal from 34 to 16. Of the 16 documents that remain under
26
seal, there are (or will be, after Defendant complies with paragraph 4 above)
27
publicly-filed redacted versions of 9 of them. Just 7 documents will remain
28
ORDER – 3
1
under seal in their entirety without a redacted version. As to those 16
2
documents that remain under seal, the court orders as follows:
3
a. As to documents with redacted substitutes (the 7 documents listed in
4
paragraph 4, plus the 2 redacted documents Plaintiffs have filed at
5
docket numbers 119 and 120), the party (or parties) relying on the
6
redacted documents shall review those documents, review every
7
instance in which that document is cited in that party’s briefing, and
8
shall determine whether the redacted document is sufficient for the
9
court’s review of the dispositive motions. For example, if within a
10
document Guild has redacted only the weight of a particular component
11
of the apparatus at issue, and the weight is not relevant to any issue the
12
court must resolve, then there is no need for further proceedings as to
13
that document, because the court need not consider the sealed
14
unredacted version of that document.
b. Of the 7 documents that will remain sealed without a redacted version,
15
16
the chart indicates that Guild had yet to complete its review of 6 of them
17
as of May 15. Those six documents are Dkt. # 84-1, the excerpts of the
18
Palumbo deposition and Casey report within Dkt. # 97, and the excerpts
19
of the Casey report, O’Donnell report, and Mitariten deposition within
20
Dkt. # 100. No later than June 19, Guild shall inform the parties as to
21
each of those documents either that it has no objection to the document
22
being filed publicly, that it requests specific redactions, or that it
23
requests that the document remain under seal in its entirety. As to any
24
document for which Guild requests redactions, the parties shall conduct
25
the review described in paragraph 5(a) above.
c. No later than June 24, the parties shall file and provide to Guild a joint
26
statement stating all documents among the 16 for which redacted
27
28
ORDER – 4
1
substitutes are sufficient for the court’s review of the dispositive
2
motions. What remains will be a list of the documents that remain
3
under seal for which there is a continued dispute. As to those
4
documents only, Guild must file a motion for a protective order no later
5
than July 1. If Guild does not, the court will unseal those documents.
6
III. CONCLUSION
7
The clerk shall UNSEAL the documents specified above, and the parties and
8
Guild shall comply with the court’s orders stated above. The clerk shall TERMINATE
9
Plaintiffs’ motion to seal (Dkt. # 96) purely for administrative purposes. To the extent
10
that disputes remain over the documents at issue in that motion, the court will resolve
11
them as described above.
12
The clerk shall file on the docket the May 21, 2015 letter the court received from
13
Guild and designate Guild as an “interested party” on the docket, using the contact
14
information for Guild’s counsel as stated on that letter. The clerk shall ensure that Guild
15
receives notice of this order.
16
DATED this 11th day of June, 2015.
17
A
18
19
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Court Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER – 5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?