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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?