Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corporation

Filing 285

ORDER granting plaintiff's 268 Motion to Seal, signed by Hon. James P. Donohue. (SWT)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD., a United Kingdom Limited Company, 10 11 12 13 Plaintiff, Case No. C17-1182-TSZ ORDER GRANTING IRONBURG’s MOTION TO SEAL v. VALVE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court upon plaintiff Ironburg Inventions Ltd. 17 (“Ironburg”)’s unopposed motion to seal two documents pursuant to the parties’ Stipulated 18 Protective Order. Dkt. 268. Specifically, plaintiff moves pursuant to LCR 5(g) to maintain the 19 20 21 22 Rebuttal Expert Report of Ambreen Salters (“Salters Report”), and a spreadsheet related to the buyout of Ironburg’s co-founder Simon Burgess, under seal because they contain confidential business information and have been designated for “ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY.” Dkt. 268. 23 To date, Valve Corporation (“Valve”) has not opposed plaintiff’s motion. See Dkt. 269 (Wanger 24 Decl.) at ¶ 2 (expressing counsel’s understanding that both parties agree the documents are 25 confidential). 26 ORDER PAGE - 1 1 Having reviewed the motion, as well as the declaration of Christopher Wanger, the Court 2 finds that these documents contain confidential competitive information that properly falls within 3 the scope of the protective order. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to seal, Dkt. 268, is 4 GRANTED. 5 6 DATED this 19th day of October, 2018. A 7 8 JAMES P. DONOHUE United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER PAGE - 2

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?