Shokri v. Boeing Company

Filing 139

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 106 Motion to Seal. Exhibits CC, EE, FF, GG, HH, NNN, and OOO (Dkts. # 111 , # 113 , # 114 , # 115 , # 116 , # 120 , and # 121 ) shall REMAIN UNDER SEAL. Exhibit DD (Dkt. # 112 ) shall be immediately UNSEALED BY THE CLERK. Within 7 days, Plaintiff shall file redacted versions of Exhibits II, JJ, and KK (Dkts. # 117 , # 118 , and # 119 ). Exhibits II, JJ, and KK Dkts. # 117 , # 118 , and # 119 , shall REMAIN UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

BEHROUZ SHOKRI,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

v.

Case No. C16-1132 RSM
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO SEAL

THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation,
Defendant.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal. Dkt. #106. Plaintiff

15

seeks to file Exhibits CC-KK, NNN, and OOO to the Declaration of Scott C.G. Blankenship in

16

Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment under seal. Id.

17
18
19
20

These documents were marked “Confidential” by Defendant under the parties’ Protective Order.
Id. ¶¶ 1–2. Defendant, as the designating party, must justify sealing the documents. Local Rule
CR 5(g)(3).

21

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

22

The Court will not grant broad authority to file documents under seal simply because the parties

23

have designated them as confidential in the course of discovery. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of

24
25

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir. 2006). “If possible, a party should protect sensitive
information by redacting documents rather than seeking to file them under seal.” CR 5(g)(3).

26
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
SEAL
–1

1

For dispositive motions, a party seeking to maintain the secrecy of documents must meet

2

the high threshold of showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy. Kamakana, 447 F.3d

3

at 1180. “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in

4

disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a

5
6

vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public
scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v.

7
8
9

Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “[C]ourts have recognized the
significant interest of non-party employees in keeping their employment files . . . secret.” Aevoe

10

Corp. v. AE Tech. Co., No. 2:12-cv-00053-GMN-NJK, 2013 WL 5923426, *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 1,

11

2013) (citing Triquint Semiconductor, Inc. v. Avago Techs., Ltd ., No. CV 09-1531-PHX-JAT,

12

2011 WL 4947343, *3, 5 (D. Ariz. Oct. 18, 2011)).

13
14
15
16

The Court, having reviewed the motion, Defendant’s response, and the remainder of the
record, now finds compelling reasons to GRANT the motion IN PART as follows.
Exhibit CC (Dkt. #111), attached to the Declaration of Scott C.G. Blankenship in Support

17

of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, is a personal resume

18

containing private work history details of a non-party to this litigation. The Court finds that the

19

document, possessed by an employer, is an employment file, that redaction is not feasible due to

20

the nature of the document, and that a compelling reason exists to seal the document.

21
22
23
24

Exhibits EE (Dkt. #113), FF (Dkt. #114), GG (Dkt. #115), HH (Dkt. #116), NNN
(Dkt. #120), and OOO (Dkt. #121), attached to the Declaration of Scott C.G. Blankenship in
Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, contain

25

performance evaluations for non-parties to this litigation. Exhibits EE, FF, GG, and HH also

26

contain private information for non-parties to this litigation. The Court finds that the documents
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
SEAL
–2

1
2

are employment files, that redaction is not feasible due to the nature of the documents, and that
a compelling reason exists to seal the documents.

3

Exhibit DD (Dkt. #112), attached to the Declaration of Scott C.G. Blankenship in Support

4

of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, appears to be an

5
6

unsolicited critique of a non-party arising from the sender’s interaction with the non-party in a
business setting. An unsolicited comment by a third party, not sent to the employer in the course

7
8
9

of a performance evaluation, is not equivalent to information that employees are required to
submit to their employers in the course of seeking employment or being employed or to personal

10

information contained in performance evaluations. The Court finds that the document is not

11

properly characterized as a part of the employment file and does not find a compelling reason to

12

seal the document. Further, the Court notes that the pertinent passages are included in Plaintiff’s

13
14
15
16

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and that Plaintiff’s Opposition was
not filed under seal and is not subject to a pending motion to seal. See Dkt. #105 at 4, 7, and 22.
Exhibits II (Dkt. #117), JJ (Dkt. #118), and KK (Dkt. #119), attached to the Declaration

17

of Scott C.G. Blankenship in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for

18

Summary Judgment, contain evaluations and ratings of non-parties to this litigation. The Court

19

finds that the documents are employment files and that a compelling reason exists to protect non-

20

party employees’ privacy. Defendant—the party that designated the exhibits as “Confidential”—

21
22
23
24

has indicated that it believes redaction of non-party employee identifying information is
sufficient to protect its non-party employees and communicated this fact to Plaintiff. Dkt. 126
at 4. The Court agrees, believes that filing with redactions will best protect the public’s interest

25

in judicial records while protecting non-parties’ privacy, and does not find a compelling reason

26

to file Exhibits II, JJ, and KK under seal.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
SEAL
–3

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS:

1

1.

3
4
5
6

Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (Dkt. #106) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

2.

2

Exhibits CC, EE, FF, GG, HH, NNN, and OOO to the Declaration of Scott C.G.

PART.

Blankenship in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Dkts. #111, #113, #114, #115, #116, #120, and #121) shall REMAIN UNDER SEAL.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

3.

Exhibit DD to the Declaration of Scott C.G. Blankenship in Support of Plaintiff’s

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #112) shall be immediately
UNSEALED BY THE CLERK.
4.

No later than seven (7) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file redacted

versions of Exhibits II, JJ, and KK to the Declaration of Scott C.G. Blankenship in Support of
Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkts. #117, #118, and
#119), which do not contain the identifying information of non-parties (names, BEMS, and ages).
If Plaintiff needs to cross reference individuals, Plaintiff may anonymize the documents using

17

generic monikers as Defendants have, see Dkts. #97-8, #98-2, and shall utilize the same generic

18

monikers as Defendant.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

5.

Exhibits II, JJ, and KK to the Declaration of Scott C.G. Blankenship in Support

of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed under seal at Dkts.
#117, #118, and #119, shall REMAIN UNDER SEAL.
Dated this 14th day of February 2018.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
SEAL
–4