Omeros Corporation v. Blum

Filing 24

ORDER denying without prejudice parties' 18 Stipulated Motion to Seal. Should the parties wish to re-file this Motion, the parties are instructed do so within ten (10) days of this Order with additional authority on why the Court should seal information that has already been made public. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (TH)

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

OMEROS CORPORATION,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

CASE NO. C18-908 RAJ
ORDER ON STIPULATED
MOTION TO SEAL

v.
LEONARD BLUM,
Defendant.

16
17

This matter comes before the Court on the parties Stipulated Motion to Seal. Dkt.

18 # 18. The parties seek permission to seal previously-filed portions of Defendant’s
19 Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Declaration of
20 Leonard Blum (Dkt. # 3-1 at 39-48, 49-52). Id. The parties rely on a subsequent order
21 from the King County Superior Court sealing the identical portions in the state court
22 docket, and argue that the Court should do the same on the federal docket. Id.
23

“There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Western

24 District of Washington Local Civil Rule (“LCR”) 5(g). “Only in rare circumstances
25 should a party file a motion, opposition, or reply under seal.” LCR 5(g)(5). Under this
26 Court’s Local Rules, a document may be filed under seal in only two circumstances:
27

ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION TO SEAL- 1

1
2
3
4
5
6

(A) if a statute, rule, or prior court order expressly authorizes the party to file the
document under seal; or
(B) if the party files a motion or stipulated motion to seal the document before or
at the same time the party files the sealed document. Filing a motion or stipulated
motion to seal permits the party to file the document under seal without prior
court approval pending the court’s ruling on the motion to seal. The document
will be kept under seal until the court determines whether it should remain
sealed.

7
LCR 5(g)(2).
8
The Court agrees that, in theory, Plaintiff’s proprietary and confidential
9
commercial information should not be broadcast to the public at large. However, the
10
documents the parties wish to seal were filed on June 20, 2018, and were publicly
11
available for over a month before the Motion to Seal was filed. Dkt. ## 3-1, 18. The
12
parties identify no previous “statute, rule, or prior court order” that would have permitted
13
either party to file portions of Dkt. # 3-1 under seal. LCR 5(g)(2)(A). Moreover, this
14
Court requires litigants to file a motion to seal “before or at the same time the party files
15
the sealed document.” LCR 5(g)(2). This Motion to Seal comes after the documents
16
were already publicly available.
17
Accordingly, the parties’ Motion to Seal is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
18
Dkt. # 18. Should the parties wish to re-file this Motion, the parties are instructed
19
do so within ten (10) days of this Order with additional authority on why the Court
20
should seal information that has already been made public.
21
22

Dated this 15th day of August, 2018.

23

25

A

26

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

24

27

ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION TO SEAL- 2