Lohr v. Nissan North America, Inc et al

Filing 208

ORDER granting and denying Plaintiffs' 138 152 158 165 199 Motions to Seal. Plaintiffs' Motions to Seal, Dkts. # 138 , # 152 , and # 199 , are GRANTED. The Motions at Dkt. # 158 and # 165 are DENIED. All filings at Dkts. # 140 , # 145 , # 154 , # 155 , # 201 , and # 202 are to remain under seal. Dkts. # 160 , # 167 , and # 168 are to be unsealed. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB)

Case 2:16-cv-01023-RSM Document 208 Filed 04/19/22 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7
8
9

TAMARA LOHR and RAVIKIRAN
SINDOGI, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,

Case No. C16-1023RSM
ORDER GRANTING AND DENYING
MOTIONS TO SEAL

Plaintiffs,

10
11

v.

12

NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., and
NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.,

13
14
15
16

Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motions to Seal, Dkts. #138, #152,
#158, #165, and #199. These Motions are unopposed, except for Dkts. #158 and #165.

17
18

“There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” LCR 5(g). “Only

19

in rare circumstances should a party file a motion, opposition, or reply under seal.” LCR

20

5(g)(5). Normally the moving party must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal

21

standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, with evidentiary support from

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

declarations where necessary.” LCR 5(g)(3)(B). However:
Where parties have entered a litigation agreement or stipulated
protective order (see LCR 26(c)(2)) governing the exchange in
discovery of documents that a party deems confidential, a party
wishing to file a confidential document it obtained from another
party in discovery may file a motion to seal but need not satisfy
subpart (3)(B) above. Instead, the party who designated the
document confidential must satisfy subpart (3)(B) in its response to
the motion to seal or in a stipulated motion.

ORDER GRANTING AND DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL - 1

Case 2:16-cv-01023-RSM Document 208 Filed 04/19/22 Page 2 of 2

1

LCR 5(g)(3). A “good cause” showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records

2

attached to non-dispositive motions. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

3

1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). For dispositive motions, the presumption may

4

be overcome by demonstrating “compelling reasons.” Id.; Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins.

5
6
7

Co., 331 F.3d 1135-36 (9th Cir.2003). Applying the “compelling reasons” standard, the Ninth
Circuit has found appropriate the sealing of documents attached to a motion for summary

8

judgment when court records could be used “as sources of business information that might harm

9

a litigant’s competitive standing.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

10
11
12

1097 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 38 (2016).
The Court has deep reservations about the sealing of certain of these exhibits.

13

However, given the procedural posture of this case and the lack of opposition, the Court will

14

now grant the majority of these Motions and keep the related documents under seal at this time.

15

The exceptions are Dkts. #158 and #165, where the parties appear to agree that the documents

16

at issue should not be sealed based on prior rulings of the Court.

17
18

Having reviewed the relevant briefing, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto,

19

and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Motions

20

to Seal, Dkts. #138, #152, and #199, are GRANTED. The Motions at Dkt. #158 and #165 are

21

DENIED. All filings at Dkts. #140, #145, #154, #155, #201, and #202 are to remain under

22
23
24
25
26
27

seal. Dkts. #160, #167, and #168 are to be unsealed.
DATED this 19th day of April, 2022.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

ORDER GRANTING AND DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL - 2