Lewis v. Vail Resorts Inc

Filing 91

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 80 Motion to Seal. The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal Dkt. # 82 -1 and # 82 -3 through # 82 -31. Dkt. # 81 shall remain under seal, but plaintiff shall file an unsealed version of the document for public viewing with only the two sentences taken from the Evaluation redacted. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (MJV)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5 6 7 8 MIROSLAVA LEWIS, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 v. Cause No. C23-0812RSL ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL (Dkt. # 80) VAIL RESORTS, INC., et al., Defendants. 12 13 14 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to seal her opposition to 15 defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dkt. # 80. Plaintiff seeks to protect from public 16 view the entirety of her response and supporting exhibits because defendants designated certain 17 18 materials as confidential during discovery. Defendants, as the parties claiming confidentiality, 19 have the burden of providing a statement of the applicable legal standards and the reasons for 20 keeping each document under seal. 21 22 “There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files,” and, absent a 23 showing that the public’s right of access is outweighed by the interests of the public and/or the 23 parties in shielding the material from public view, a seal is not appropriate. LCR 5(g). A party’s 25 26 unilateral designation of a document as confidential under a protective order does not, in and of 27 itself, justify a seal under LCR 5(g)(2). Where a document has been offered in support of or 28 opposition to a dispositive motion, the party requesting that the record be sealed ORDER - 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process. In turn, the court must conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture. In general, “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets. The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal 13 14 15 16 citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). Defendants have abandoned all of the relevant confidentiality designations except as to the Stevens Pass Lift Evaluation produced by Tramway Engineering, Ltd., in October 2016, Dkt. 17 18 # 82-2. Defendants worry that the release of that document to the public would harm their 19 competitive position by exposing operational vulnerabilities, would impair negotiations with 20 vendors, contractors, and insurers who otherwise would not have access to this information, and 21 22 could otherwise cause unwarranted public concern or reputational harm. At this stage of the 23 proceeding, Dkt. # 82-2 may remain under seal. The seal is provisional, however. If the 23 Evaluation is so germane to the summary judgment issues that it is quoted or its substance is 25 26 otherwise disclosed in the Court’s order, the seal will be lifted as to those portions of the 27 documents. 28 ORDER - 2 1 2 The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal Dkt. # 82-1 and # 82-3 through # 82-31. Dkt. # 81 shall remain under seal, but plaintiff shall file an unsealed version of the document for 3 4 public viewing with only the two sentences taken from the Evaluation redacted (page 4, last two 5 sentences of the first full paragraph). 1 6 7 8 Dated this 27th day of January, 2025. 9 10 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 25 26 27 1 Plaintiff is reminded of her obligation to minimize the amount of material filed under seal. In this case, only Dkt. # 82-2 should have been sealed in its entirety, and a redacted version of the 28 opposition memorandum should have been filed for public viewing. 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?