Kenny v. Pacific Investment Management Company LLC et al

Filing 232

ORDER striking parties' Motions to Seal, Dkts. 149 ; 158 ; 175 ; 184 ; 190 ; 200 . Defendants are to submit one brief listing all remaining documents they wish to seal no later than 6/5/2018. Plaintiff is to submit one brief responding to Defendants' arguments 14 days after Defendants' brief is filed. No reply brief is permitted. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

ROBERT KENNY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. C14-1987-RSM
ORDER STRIKING MOTIONS TO SEAL
AND DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO
SUBMIT NEW COMPREHENSIVE
BRIEFING

PACIFIC INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
COMPANY LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; PIMCO INVESTMENTS LLC,
Defendants.

17
18

This matter comes before the Court on the six Motions to Seal filed by the parties in this

19

matter. Dkts. #149, #158, #175, #184, #190, and #200. These Motions aim to seal summary

20

judgment briefing and over 100 exhibits related to the parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment,

21

Dkts. #154 and #162. Currently sealed exhibits total approximately 3,000 pages.

22
23
24

There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files. LCR 5(g). A party
must explore all alternatives to filing a document under seal. LCR 5(g)(1). A party must

25

minimize the number of documents it files under seal and the length of each document it files

26

under seal. LCR 5(g)(4). Only in rare circumstances should a party file a motion, opposition,

27

or reply under seal. LCR 5(g)(5).

28
ORDER STRIKING MOTIONS TO SEAL AND DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT
NEW COMPREHENSIVE BRIEFING - 1

1

A motion to seal must include a “specific statement of the applicable legal standard and

2

the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an explanation of i) the legitimate

3

private or public interests that warrant the relief sought; ii) the injury that will result if the relief

4

sought is not granted; and iii) why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not

5
6
7

sufficient.” LCR 5(g)(3)(B).
The Court has begun review of the parties’ Motions to Seal and finds that the current

8

form of briefing has resulted in duplicative arguments. Furthermore, the parties have agreed

9

that certain documents no longer need to be sealed. See Dkt. #168 at 5. In order to efficiently

10
11
12
13

address the concerns of the parties in a timely manner, and in order to avoid conflicting rulings
on the sealing of various documents, the Court will direct the parties to submit new
comprehensive briefing. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that:

14

1) The parties’ Motions to Seal, Dkts. #149, #158, #175, #184, #190, and #200, are

15

STRICKEN. All currently sealed documents are to remain sealed pending further

16

direction from the Court.

17
18

2) Defendants are to submit one brief, not to exceed 15 pages, listing all of the

19

remaining documents they wish to seal and the legal arguments for doing so.

20

Defendants may divide the documents into categories with applicable argument, but

21

must otherwise follow LCR 5(g)(3)(B). Defendants’ brief is due no later than

22
23
24
25
26
27

Tuesday, June 5, 2018.
3) Plaintiff is to submit one brief, not to exceed 15 pages, responding to Defendants’
arguments. Plaintiff’s brief is due 14 days after Defendant’s brief is filed.
4) The parties may not attach any new declarations or exhibits.
5) The parties must cite to the sealed documents in question by docket number.

28
ORDER STRIKING MOTIONS TO SEAL AND DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT
NEW COMPREHENSIVE BRIEFING - 2

1

6) No reply brief is permitted.

2
3

DATED this 22 day of May, 2018.

4
5
6
7
8
9

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER STRIKING MOTIONS TO SEAL AND DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT
NEW COMPREHENSIVE BRIEFING - 3