T-Mobile USA Inc v. Huawei Device USA Inc et al

Filing 391

ORDER STRIKING ALL PENDING MOTIONS #349 #364 #375 #377 #388 ; within 14 days parties are directed to meet and confer; within 14 days parties shall jointly file proof of agreement or the court will unseal all affected documents. Going forward, any motion to seal that is not brought jointly by the parties will be summarily denied and the documents at issue will be unsealed. Any party that violates this Order will be subject to sanctions by Judge Richard A Jones.(RS)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

v.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER

HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

Case No. C14-1351-RAJ

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Huawei Device USA Inc.’s
Motions to Seal (Dkt. ## 364, 377, 388) and Plaintiff T-Mobile USA, Inc.’s Motions to
Seal (Dkt. ## 349, 375). For the reasons that follow, the Court STRIKES the parties’
motions.
“Unnecessarily voluminous” is an apt description for many of the filings in this
case, but nowhere does it apply with more force than the parties’ motions to seal. By the
Court’s count, the parties have filed a total of twenty-two motions to seal in this matter.
See Dkt. ## 29, 33, 136, 163, 181, 190, 211, 219, 243, 255, 267, 276, 282, 295, 327, 336,
342, 349, 364, 375, 377, 388. Nearly all of these motions have drawn a response brief

23

from the opposing party. Dkt. ## 36, 146, 186, 189, 227, 228, 287, 288, 304, 305, 306,

24

311, 359, 360, 362, 370, 387. Several have resulted in a reply brief. Dkt. ## 233, 290,

25

307, 309, 310.

26

The Court has encouraged the parties to collaborate. In December 2016, the Court

27

ordered the parties to file a joint statement consolidating their positions on seven pending

28

ORDER – 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

motions to seal. See Dkt. # 313. After receiving the joint submission, the Court ordered
the parties to meet and confer concerning their disagreements over which documents
should remain under seal. Dkt. # 316. They did so and reached a consensus on certain
disputed issues. Dkt. # 322.
To the Court’s disappointment, the parties have since reverted to their previous
ways. Rather than reach consensus in a joint motion, the parties continue to drag the
Court through an inefficient, convoluted briefing process that serves no purpose other
than to confuse, overwhelm, and distract the Court.
Accordingly, the Court STRIKES all pending motions to seal. Dkt. # 349, 364,
375, 377, 388. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, the parties are
again ORDERED to meet and confer. This time, however, the Court will unseal all
documents at issue in the pending motions unless the parties reach an agreement as
to which documents at issue in the pending motions should remain under seal.
Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, the parties shall jointly file
proof of this agreement, or the Court will unseal all affected documents. Going
forward, any motion to seal that is not brought jointly by the parties will be summarily
denied and the documents at issue will be unsealed. Any party that violates this Order
will be subject to sanctions.
DATED this 10th day of March, 2017.

20

22

A

23

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

21

24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 2