Kenny v. Pacific Investment Management Company LLC et al

Filing 244

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re: Request to Withdraw Records. Parties shall file a Response to Order to Show Cause no later than seven (7) days from the date of this Order. 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,

Case No. C14-1987 RSM
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
REQUEST TO WITHDRAW RECORDS

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

17
18

On August 8, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, citing

19

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Dkt. #243. Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice. This

20

takes effect without a court order. All pending motions will be terminated as moot.

21
22
23
24

The stipulation also provided notice that the parties intend to withdraw their pending
cross-motions for summary judgment, Dkts. #154 and #162, and all supporting materials.
Although this would normally be unnecessary in a dismissed case, an explanation arrives in the

25

following sentence: “For the avoidance of doubt, pursuant to LCR 5(g)(6), in light of their

26

withdrawal, the parties request that material currently filed under seal remain sealed.” Id. at 2.

27
28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: REQUEST TO WITHDRAW RECORDS - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Local Rule 5(g)(6) states:
When the court denies a motion to seal, the clerk will unseal the
document unless (1) the court orders otherwise, or (2) the party
who is relying on the sealed document requests in the motion to
seal or response that, if the motion to seal is denied, the court
withdraw the document from the record rather than unseal it. If a
document is withdrawn on this basis, the parties shall not refer to it
in any pleadings, motions or other filings, and the court will not
consider it. For this reason, parties are encouraged to seek a ruling
on motions to seal well in advance of filing underlying motions
relying on those documents.
This rule does not apply. The Court has “denied a motion to seal,” but the parties who are

9
10

relying on the sealed documents have not requested “in the motion to seal or response that…

11

the court withdraw the document from the record rather than unseal it.” The parties had the

12

opportunity in numerous motions to seal and responses to motions to seal to cite to this rule and

13

request that the court withdraw the documents at issue rather than unseal. The parties did not

14
15
16

take advantage of those opportunities. Such a request made now, after the Court has ruled on
the motions to seal and after this case has been dismissed, is not permitted by this Local Rule.

17

The Court believes that such a request is contrary to the “strong presumption of public access to

18

the court’s files.” See LCR 5(g).

19
20
21

The Court has ordered Plaintiff to file new unsealed or redacted version of the
documents at issue by August 10, 2018. See Dkts. #238 and #242. However, given the clear

22

importance of this issue to the parties, the Court will further extend that deadline to allow the

23

parties a final chance to explain why they should be permitted to withdraw the documents from

24

the record rather than have the Court unseal them.

25

The Court hereby finds and ORDERS that the parties shall each file a Response to this

26
27

Order to Show Cause containing the detail described above no later than seven (7) days from

28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: REQUEST TO WITHDRAW RECORDS - 2

1
2
3

the date of this Order. Each Response is not to exceed three (3) pages. Attachments are not
permitted.
DATED this 9th day of August 2018.

4
5
6
7

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: REQUEST TO WITHDRAW RECORDS - 3