Alpert v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC et al

Filing 118

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 107 Motion to Seal. Defendants shall have twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order to explain to this Court why these documents should be kept under seal. If Defendants fail to make such a showing, the Clerk is directed to unseal Dkt. # 106 . Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (TH)

1
2
3

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

10
11
12

SPENCER ALPERT,

13
Plaintiff,

14

16
17

ORDER

v.

15

CASE NO. C15-1164 RAJ

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.

18
19
20

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to File Exhibit 3-A to the

21 Declaration of Jason E. Anderson Under Seal (“Motion to Seal”). Dkt. # 107. Plaintiff
22 seeks to file under seal certain documents produced by Defendants and designated as
23 “CONFIDENTIAL.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff attaches these documents as exhibits to a
24 declaration in support of its summary judgment motion. Dkt. # 106.
25

“There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Western

26 District of Washington Local Civil Rule (“LCR”) 5(g). “Only in rare circumstances
27 should a party file a motion, opposition, or reply under seal.” LCR 5(g)(5). Normally the

ORDER- 1

1 moving party must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the
2 reasons for keeping a document under seal, with evidentiary support from declarations
3 where necessary.” LCR 5(g)(3)(B). However, where parties have entered a stipulated
4 protective order governing the exchange in discovery of documents that a party deems
5 confidential, “a party wishing to file a confidential document it obtained from another
6 party in discovery may file a motion to seal but need not satisfy subpart (3)(B) above.
7 Instead, the party who designated the document confidential must satisfy subpart (3)(B)
8 in its response to the motion to seal or in a stipulated motion.” LCR 5(g)(3). A “good
9 cause” showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non10 dispositive motions. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th
11 Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). For dispositive motions, the presumption may be
12 overcome by demonstrating “compelling reasons.” Id.; Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto.
13 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1135-36 (9th Cir. 2003).
14

Defendants have not filed any response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal. Although

15 Plaintiff believes that the documents have the “look and feel of a trade secret,” this Court
16 operates on factual findings, not feelings. Dkt. # 107 at 2. Plaintiff’s cursory review and
17 opinion of the materials does not satisfy Local Rule 5(g). Defendants, as the parties
18 designating these documents, have not met their burden to provide a “specific statement”
19 articulating why these documents should be kept under seal. LCR 5(g)(3). No party has
20 overcome the “strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” LCR 5(g).
21

The Court accordingly DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal. Dkt. # 107.

22 Defendants shall have twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order to explain to
23 this Court why these documents should be kept under seal.
24
25
26
27

ORDER- 2

1

If Defendants fail to make such a showing, the Clerk is directed to unseal Dkt. #

2 106.
3
4

Dated this 21st day of August, 2018.

5

A

6
7

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

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

ORDER- 3