Wahlfeld v. Wahlfeld

Filing 6

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's #1 Motion to Seal. The Clerk is directed to unseal this case and docket entries #1 , #3 , #4 , and #5 . However, docket entry #2 can remain under seal because it contains personal identifiers. Within 14 days of the date of this Order, Ms. Wahlfeld must publicly file a copy of that document in the record with sensitive personal information redacted consistent with Local Civil Rule 5.2 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. Signed by Judge Lauren King. (SB) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

ALEXANDRA WAHLFELD,

11
12

v.

13

Petitioner,

WILLIAM WAHLFELD,

14

CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01899-LK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
MOTION TO SEAL

Respondent.

15
16

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Alexandra Wahlfeld’s motion to seal all

17

of her documents in this matter. Dkt. No. 1. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the

18

motion in part and denies it in part.

19

A.

Legal Standard

20

Courts have recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,

21

including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

22

1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)).

23

Accordingly, when a district court considers a sealing request, “a strong presumption in favor of

24

access is the starting point.” Id. (cleaned up). This presumption, however, “is not absolute and can
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL - 1

1

be overridden given sufficiently compelling reasons for doing so.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

2

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist.

3

Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999)).

4

The standard for determining whether to seal a record depends on the filing with which the

5

sealed record is associated and whether such filing is “more than tangentially related to the merits

6

of a case.” See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1098–1102 (9th Cir. 2016).

7

If the filing at issue is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the court must apply

8

the “compelling reasons” standard to the motion to seal. See id. If the filing is only tangentially

9

related to the merits, the party seeking to seal the records need only show “good cause.” See id.

10

Additionally, in the Western District of Washington, parties moving to seal documents

11

must comply with the procedures established by Local Civil Rule 5(g). Under that rule, the party

12

who designates a document confidential must provide a “specific statement of the applicable legal

13

standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the

14

legitimate private or public interest that warrant the relief sought; (ii) the injury that will result if

15

the relief sought is not granted; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not

16

sufficient.” LCR 5(g)(3)(B).

17

B.

Ms. Wahlfeld Has Not Justified Sealing the Entire Case

18

Ms. Wahlfeld seeks to “file all of [her] documents sealed, due to [her] child’s privacy.”

19

Dkt. No. 1 at 1. Consequently, the entire case is currently under seal. Her filings include her

20

petition for the return of her minor child to Germany under the Hague Convention, Dkt. No. 2,

21

which is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.

22

Protecting the privacy of a minor is a compelling reason justifying keeping the minor’s full

23

name out of the public record. See, e.g., Rec Room Inc. v. M.Z., No. C23-1586-KKE, 2024 WL

24

1765709, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 24, 2024) (noting that “this District recognizes the strong privacy
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL - 2

1

interests of minor children and birthdates”). However, sealing the entire record, particularly before

2

Mr. Wahlfeld has appeared, would be inconsistent with his right to be heard in this matter. See,

3

e.g., Murray v. King Cnty. Ct., No. 24-cv-00239-JNW, 2024 WL 4144153, at *5 (W.D. Wash.

4

Sept. 11, 2024) (citing Granny Goose Foods, Inc., 415 U.S. at 439 (1974)).

5

Moreover, it is not necessary to seal the entire case or all of Ms. Wahlfeld’s filings to

6

protect the minor’s privacy. Local Civil Rule 5.2(a) requires filers to redact the names of minor

7

children to their initials, and the petition refers to the child by his initials. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 2 at

8

17. Ms. Wahlfeld has not explained why that is insufficient here. Therefore, her request to seal all

9

of her filings is denied, and the Clerk is directed to unseal this case and docket entries 1, 3, 4, and

10

5.

11

However, docket entry 2 can remain under seal because it contains personal identifiers.

12

Within 14 days of the date of this Order, Ms. Wahlfeld must publicly file a copy of that document

13

in the record with sensitive personal information redacted consistent with Local Civil Rule 5.2 and

14

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2.

15
16
17
18

Dated this 22nd day of November, 2024.

A

Lauren King
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL - 3