Hyperion Entertainment C.V.B.A. et al v. Itec, LLC et al

Filing 140

ORDER denying Counter-Claimants' 99 Motion to Seal. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to immediately unseal Dkt. # 101 . Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB)

Case 2:18-cv-00381-RSM Document 140 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

CLOANTO CORPORATION, et al.,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13

Case No. C18-381RSM
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

HYPERION ENTERTAINMENT CVBA,

14
15
16

Defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal Exhibits 2, 3, 5, 7, 10,

17
18

and 11. Dkt. #99.

19

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

20

The Court’s Local Rules explicitly instruct the parties to present legal and evidentiary support

21

in a motion to seal. Normally that motion must include “a specific statement of the applicable

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, with evidentiary support
from declarations where necessary.” Local Rule 5(g)(3)(B). However:
Where parties have entered a litigation agreement or stipulated
protective order (see LCR 26(c)(2)) governing the exchange in
discovery of documents that a party deems confidential, a party
wishing to file a confidential document it obtained from another
party in discovery may file a motion to seal but need not satisfy
subpart (3)(B) above. Instead, the party who designated the

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL - 1

Case 2:18-cv-00381-RSM Document 140 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 2

1
2

document confidential must satisfy subpart (3)(B) in its response to
the motion to seal or in a stipulated motion.
Local Rule 5(g)(3).

3
4

Plaintiffs are moving to seal documents that Defendants designated as confidential in

5

discovery. Plaintiffs do not argue that these documents should be sealed; the only reason

6

Plaintiffs have filed the instant Motion is to comply with the Court’s Local Rule 5(g)(3). The

7

Motion indicates that the parties failed to meet and confer about this issue. Defendants have not

8
9
10
11
12

filed a response brief to this Motion. See Docket. The Court finds that no basis has been
presented to keep these exhibits under seal.
Accordingly, the Court hereby FINDS and ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Motion, Dkt. #99 is
DENIED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to immediately unseal Dkt. #101.

13
14
15

DATED this 12th day of July, 2022.

16
17
18
19

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL - 2