Shokri v. Boeing Company

Filing 140

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 135 Motion to Seal. Exhibits EE and FF to the Supplemental Declaration of Scott C.G. Blankenship in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkts. # 136 and # 137 ) shall be immediately UNSEALED BY THE CLERK. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (TH)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
BEHROUZ SHOKRI,

8

Plaintiff,

9

Case No. C16-1132 RSM
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO SEAL

v.

10
11

THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation,

12

Defendant.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal. Dkt. #135. Plaintiff

15

filed Exhibits EE and FF to the Supplemental Declaration of Scott C.G. Blankenship in Support

16

of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment under seal. Dkts. #136, #137. Plaintiff filed

17
18
19
20
21

the exhibits under seal as they were marked “Confidential” by Defendant under the parties’
Protective Order. Dkt. #135 ¶¶ 1–2. Plaintiff does not argue that the exhibits should be kept
under seal. Id. Defendant’s also does not argue that the exhibits should be kept under seal and
consents to the Court unsealing the exhibits.1 Dkt. #138.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25
26

1

The Court does note that Plaintiff may not have made a good faith effort to confer with Defendant prior to filing
the exhibits under seal, as required by Local Rule CR 5(g)(1)(A), and that Defendant may not have been afforded a
reasonable opportunity to consent to public filing. Dkt. #138.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL – 1

1

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir. 2006). As related to dispositive motions, a party seeking

2

to maintain the secrecy of documents must meet the high threshold of showing that “compelling

3

reasons” support secrecy. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. “In general, ‘compelling reasons’

4

sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist

5
6

when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of
records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release

7
8
9

trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598
(1978)).

10

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendant’s Response, and the remainder

11

of the record, finds that no compelling reason supports sealing Exhibits EE and FF to the

12

Supplemental Declaration of Scott C.G. Blankenship in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial

13
14
15
16

Summary Judgment.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (Dkt. #135) is DENIED
and that Exhibits EE and FF to the Supplemental Declaration of Scott C.G. Blankenship in

17

Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkts. #136 and #137) shall be

18

immediately UNSEALED BY THE CLERK.

19

Dated this 16th day of February 2018.

20
21
22
23

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL – 2