Wagafe et al v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Filing 429

ORDER granting 374 Motion to Seal; granting 375 Sealed Motion to redact 5/28/2020 hearing transcript. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones.(MW)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et al.,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

v.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

I.

Before the Court are two motions: (1) Defendants’ Motion to Redact Portions of
the May 28, 2020 Hearing Transcript, Dkt. # 375, and (2) Defendants’ Motion to Seal the
Motion to Redact Portions of the May 28, 2020 Hearing Transcript, Dkt. # 374.
“There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Western
District of Washington Local Civil Rule (“LCR”) 5(g). “Only in rare circumstances
should a party file a motion, opposition, or reply under seal.” LCR 5(g)(5). Generally,
the moving party must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and
the reasons for keeping a document under seal, with evidentiary support from
declarations where necessary.” LCR 5(g)(3)(B). However, where parties have entered a

27
28

INTRODUCTION

ORDER – 1

1

stipulated protective order governing the exchange in discovery of documents that a party

2

deems confidential, “a party wishing to file a confidential document it obtained from

3

another party in discovery may file a motion to seal but need not satisfy subpart (3)(B)

4

above. Instead, the party who designated the document confidential must satisfy subpart

5

(3)(B) in its response to the motion to seal or in a stipulated motion.” LCR 5(g)(3). A

6

“good cause” showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to

7

non-dispositive motions. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180

8

(9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted).
Here, Defendants request redactions to restrict public disclosure of information

9
10

protected by this Court’s Protective Orders, Dkt. ## 183 and 192. Dkt. # 391. Plaintiffs

11

argue that such redactions are unnecessary because the requested redactions refer to

12

information that has already been made public. See Dkt. # 387 at 1. The Court disagrees

13

and finds that Defendants have demonstrated good cause that such redactions are

14

necessary to comply with the Court’s Protective Orders.
The Court thereby GRANTS the limited redactions requested by Defendants.

15
16

Dkt. # 375. For the same reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to seal, Dkt.

17

# 374.

18

DATED this 20th day of October, 2020.

19

A

20
21

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 2