Moi v. Chihuly Studio, Inc. et al

Filing 32

ORDER granting defendants' 4 Motion to File Document Under Seal (Complaint); Defendants shall file a redacted version of the complaint consistent with the attachment to Dkt. # 4 . The unredacted version of the complaint (Dkt. # 10 ) will remain sealed, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

MICHAEL MOI,
Plaintiff,

9

v.

10
11

No. C17-0853RSL
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO SEAL

CHIHULY STUDIO, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14

This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ “Motion to File Document Under Seal

15

(Complaint).” Dkt. # 4. Defendants seek to redact thirteen lines of text from the nineteen page

16

complaint in which plaintiff recounts a conversation he had with a third party regarding other

17

third parties. Defendants have filed an unsealed, redacted version of the complaint at Dkt. # 9.

18

Defendants argue that public disclosure of the communications at issue may implicate

19

existing confidentiality agreements, the third parties involved support the proposed redaction,

20

and the redaction is extremely limited. Plaintiff raises procedural objections,1 but does not

21

make any argument regarding the interests of the persons involved or the public. The Court

22

finds that, at least at the moment, the redacted information is not of particular importance to the

23
24
25
26

1

Defendants’ efforts to seal the complaint in King County Superior Court have as yet been
unsuccessful given the removal of this action. Whether defendants will be able to seal a document in a
closed case is unknown, but that does not mean that its efforts here should be rejected.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO SEAL

1

public’s understanding of plaintiff’s claim.2 The third parties’ privacy interests therefore

2

outweigh the public’s interest in the unsealed version of the complaint.

3
4

The motion to seal is GRANTED. Defendants shall file a redacted version of the

5

complaint consistent with the attachment to Dkt. # 4. The unredacted version of the complaint

6

(Dkt. # 10) will remain sealed.

7
8

Dated this 28th day of June, 2017.

9

A
Robert S. Lasnik

10

United States District Judge

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

2

Plaintiff may file a motion to unseal if, as the case progresses, the events and communications
recounted in ¶ 3.26 become a significant issue in this litigation.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO SEAL

-2-