Nellams v. Pacific Maritime Association et al

Filing 85

ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 82 directing Defendant to file a redacted version of Exhibit L to the Declaration of Aileen Pick (Dkt. # 80 ) that redacts the identifying information of non-parties (names, employee numbers, etc.). Exhibit L to the Declaration of Aileen Pick (Dkt. # 80 ) 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

ABIN’BOLA NELLAMS,
8

CASE NO. C17-911RSM
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
v.
PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, et
al.,
Defendants.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte on the Court’s August 20 Order to Show
15
16

Cause. Dkt. #82. That Order followed Defendant Pacific Maritime Association’s motion for

17

summary judgment and its filing of Exhibit L to the Declaration of Aileen Pick (Dkt. #80) under

18

seal. The document was filed under seal without a related motion to seal as required by Local

19

Civil Rule 5(g)(2). Accordingly, the Court directed Defendant to show cause why the document

20

should not be unsealed. Dkt. #82.

21

Defendant responded on the same day indicating that the materials had been marked

22
“confidential” pursuant to the protective order entered in the matter (Dkt. #66) and that filing the
23
24

document publicly would not be easy. Dkt. #83. Defendant did not indicate that it had complied

25

with the requirements of Local Civil Rule 5(g)(3)(A) and did not include the information required

26

by Local Civil Rule 5(g)(3)(B). Id.

27
ORDER – 1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir. 2006). “If possible, a party should protect sensitive

5

information by redacting documents rather than seeking to file them under seal.” LCR 5(g)(3).

6

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

7
the high threshold of showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy. Kamakana, 447 F.3d
8
9

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

10

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

11

vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public

12

scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v.

13
14

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

15
16

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

17

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

18

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

19

Exhibit L to the Declaration of Aileen Pick (Dkt. #80) details arbitration proceedings

20

arising out of conduct occurring in a workplace setting. Defendant is correct that non-party

21

employees involved in the arbitration proceedings may have a privacy interest in their

22
employment files. However, Defendant does not establish that the non-party employees have an
23
24

interest in these documents and more importantly does not explain why redaction of non-party

25

employee names is not sufficient to likewise protect any privacy interest they may have in these

26

records. The Court believes filing with redactions will best protect the public’s interest in judicial

27
ORDER – 2

1
2

records while protecting the privacy of non-parties and does not find a compelling reason for
maintaining the entirety of Exhibit L to the Declaration of Aileen Pick (Dkt. #80) under seal.

3

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS:

4

1.

5
6

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

redacted version of Exhibit L to the Declaration of Aileen Pick (Dkt. #80) that redacts the
identifying information of non-parties (names, employee numbers, etc.).

7
2.

Exhibit L to the Declaration of Aileen Pick (Dkt. #80) shall REMAIN UNDER

8
9
10

SEAL.
DATED this 31st day of August, 2018.

11
12

A

13

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER – 3