Lynx System Developers Inc et al v. Zebra Enterprise Solutions Corporation et al

Filing 22

ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 10 Motion to Seal. Clerk is directed to maintain under seal Exhibit C to Declaration of Ashley E. LaValley, Dkt. 11 . Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

LYNX SYSTEM DEVELOPERS
INC. and ISOLYNX, LLC,

11
Plaintiffs,
12
13
14
15

18
19
20
21

ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL

v.
ZEBRA ENTERPRISE
SOLUTIONS CORPORATION,
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, and ZIH CORP.,
Defendants.

16
17

CASE NO. C17-1165 JLR

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiffs Lynx System Developers Inc. and
Isolynx, LLC’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion to seal Exhibit C to the Declaration of
Ashley E. LaValley. (Mot. (Dkt. # 10) at 1-2.; see also LaValley Decl. (Dkt. # 9);
Exhibit C (Dkt. # 11) (sealed).) Defendants Zebra Enterprise Solutions Corporation,
Zebra Technologies Corporation, and ZIH Corp. (collectively, “Defendants”) do not

22

ORDER - 1

1

oppose Plaintiffs’ motion. (Resp. (Dkt. # 20).) The court has reviewed the submissions

2

of the parties and the relevant law, and for the reasons set forth below, GRANTS

3

Plaintiffs’ motion.

4

The parties ask the court to seal Exhibit C, which is an email chain among counsel

5

for Defendants, Plaintiffs, and the University of Washington (“UW Email Chain”). This

6

email chain was designated by Defendants as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE

7

ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY,” pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered in the

8

underlying Massachusetts action. See Lynx Sys. Developers, Inc., et al. v. Zebra

9

Enterprise Solutions Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-12297-GAO (D. Mass.), Dkt. # 96.

10

Under Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule 5(g)(3)(B), a motion to

11

seal a document must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and

12

the reasons for keeping a document under seal,” including “the legitimate private or

13

public interests that warrant the relief sought,” “the injury that will result if the relief

14

sought is not granted,” and “why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not

15

sufficient.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 5(g)(3)(B). Having reviewed Exhibit C, the

16

court concludes that it contains sensitive business information that would cause

17

substantial injury to Defendants if the public were allowed access, such that sealing the

18

document is the least restrictive means of protecting the confidential information.

19

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to seal (Dkt. # 10), and

20
21

DIRECTS the clerk to maintain the seal on docket number 11.
Dated this 15th day of August, 2017.

22

ORDER - 2

2

A

3

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

1

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3