Sillavan et al v. State of Washington, Department of Social and Health Services et al

Filing 34

ORDER granting Defendant's 17 Motion to Seal. Defendants may file the requested documents under seal, with public versions where the relevant information is redacted, pending the outcome of this litigation, at which time the Court may determine if the documents will be unsealed. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (TH)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

PATRISHA AND STEVEN SILLAVAN,
on behalf of their minor children C.S.,
B.S., and L.S.,

11

No. CV17-1126-RAJ

Plaintiffs,
12

ORDER
v.

13
14
15

STATE OF WASHINGTON,
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND
HEALTH SERVICES, and KATHERINE
GRAFF,

16

Defendants.
17
18
19
20
21

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Seal certain exhibits
filed in support of Defendants’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. # 17.
Plaintiffs have not filed a Response. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS
Defendants’ Motion. Dkt. # 17.
“There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Western

22

District of Washington Local Civil Rule (“LCR”) 5(g). “Only in rare circumstances
23
24
25

should a party file a motion, opposition, or reply under seal.” LCR 5(g)(5). Normally 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

ORDER - 1

1

where necessary.” LCR 5(g)(3)(B). However, pursuant to LCR 5(g), whichever party

2

designates a document confidential must provide a “specific statement of the applicable

3

legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an

4

explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interest that warrant the relief sought;

5

(ii) the injury that will result if the relief sought is not granted; and (iii) why a less

6

restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not sufficient.” LCR 5(g). A “good cause”

7
8
9

showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive
motions. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006)
(internal citations omitted).
Defendants, in support of their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 14),

10

seek to file under seal a number of exhibits that contain sensitive information in relation
11
12
13
14

to an investigation into child sexual assault. Defendants’ Motion was originally filed
unsealed, but later sealed by the Court as it contained unredacted information of a minor
in violation of Local Rule 5.2, which was available on the public docket. Id. Defendants
later filed a redacted version of the exhibits. Dkt. # 31. Upon consideration of

15

Defendants’ Motion to Seal in this action, Plaintiffs’ lack of objection, and the record on

16

file in this case, the Court finds that the parties have demonstrated good cause to file the

17

indicated documents under seal. The Court has reviewed the documents and finds that

18

they contain private personal and medical information related to the extremely sensitive

19

topic of childhood sexual assault. Moreover, the documents contain a host of references

20

to the identity of minor children. The Court notes that per Local Rule 5.2, the names of

21

minor children were supposed to be redacted to the initials in the first instance. The

22

parties are again advised to carefully review this Court’s Local Rules and their

23

documents before making any filing on this Court’s public docket. However, the Court

24
25

ultimately finds the proposed redacted versions of the documents, currently filed on the
public docket at Dkt. # 31, to be reasonable.

ORDER - 2

1

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED.

2

Dkt. # 17. Defendants may file the requested documents under seal, with public versions

3

where the relevant information is redacted, pending the outcome of this litigation, at

4

which time the Court may determine if the documents will be unsealed.

5
6

Dated this 2nd day of November, 2018.

7

A

8
9

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

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

ORDER - 3