Shokri v. Boeing Company

Filing 80

ORDER granting in part Plaintiff's 73 Motion to Seal ; Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 to the Declaration of Scott C.G. Blankenship in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkts. 75 , 76 and 77 ) shall REMAIN UNDER SEAL ; Defendant shall file a supplemental motion to seal Exhibit 8 ; Dkt. 78 shall remain under seal until the Court considers the supplemental motion, signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

BEHROUZ SHOKRI.,
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

11

Case No. C16-1132 RSM
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation,

12
13

Defendant.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal. Dkt. #73.

14
15
16

Defendant has not filed a response to the motion. Plaintiff seeks to file under seal Exhibits 4,
5, 6 and 8 to the Declaration of Scott C.G. Blankenship in Support of Plaintiff’s pending

17

Motion to Compel. Id. These documents were marked “Confidential” by Defendant under the

18

parties’ Protective Order.

19
20
21
22
23

“There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Local Rule CR
5(g)(2). For nondispositive motions, “this presumption may be overcome by a showing of
good cause.” Id. The Court has reviewed the motion, along with the remainder of the record,
and now finds good cause to GRANT the motion IN PART as follows.

24

The documents identified by Plaintiff as Exhibits 4, 5, and 6 to the Declaration of Scott

25

C.G. Blankenship (Dkts. #75, #76 and #77) contain information that is both proprietary in

26

nature and sensitive employment information for non-parties to this litigation. Given the
ORDER - 1

1

nature of the documents, it is not feasible to redact them, and the Court finds good cause to

2

seal them.

3
4
5
6

However, the Court requires further information with respect to Exhibit 8 to the
Declaration of Scott C.G. Blankenship (Dkt. #78) before it can reach any such conclusion.
Specifically, Exhibit 8 appears to contain a transcript of a conversation which could easily be

7

redacted, much of which does not appear to include confidential or proprietary information.

8

See Dkt. #78. Because Defendant has the burden, Defendant must explain the reasons why

9

that exhibit must be sealed, why it cannot be redacted, what information is required to be

10
11

protected, and what authority provides a basis to protect such information.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS:

12
13
14

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (Dkt. #73) is GRANTED IN PART.
2. Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 to the Declaration of Scott C.G. Blankenship in Support of

15

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkts. #75, #76 and #77) shall REMAIN UNDER

16

SEAL.

17
18
19
20
21

3. No later than seven (7) days from the date of this Order, Defendant shall file a
supplemental motion to seal Exhibit 8 to the Declaration of Scott C.G. Blankenship
in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. #78), explaining why such
document should be sealed as detailed above. The supplemental motion shall be

22

noted for consideration the same day it is filed, and shall be limited to no

23

longer than three (3) pages in length. No response shall be filed. If Defendant

24

no longer believes the Exhibit should be sealed, it should inform the Court as much,

25

by filing a Notice of Non-Opposition, and explain to the Court why it did not make

26
ORDER - 2

1

such stipulation during the parties’ meet and confer prior to Plaintiff’s motion to

2

compel and accompanying motion to seal.

3
4
5
6
7

4. The document filed under seal by Plaintiff at Dkt. #78 shall remain under seal until
the Court considers the supplemental motion and makes a final decision as to
whether that document should be sealed
DATED this 6th day of October 2017.

8

A

9

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 3