Pactool International Ltd v. Dewalt Industrial Tool Co et al

Filing 309

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 256 Motion to Seal; denying 271 Motion to Seal; denying 282 Motion to Seal; denying 292 Motion to Seal.(TG)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6
7

PACTOOL INTERNATIONAL LTD.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

CASE NO. C06-5367BHS

v.
KETT TOOL COMPANY, INC., et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
SEAL

Defendants.

11
12

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff PacTool International Ltd.’s
13
14
15
16

(“PacTool”) motion to seal exhibits to the motion to exclude opening expert report and
related testimony of K. Hock (Dkt. 256), motion to seal PacTool’s reply in support of its
motion to exclude the opening expert report and related testimony of K. Hock (Dkt. 271),

17

motion to seal exhibits in support of PacTool’s memorandum in opposition to Defendant

18

Kett Tool Company’s (“Kett”) motion for summary judgment as to invalidity (Dkt. 282),

19

and Kett’s motion to seal exhibits to the Conlon declaration (Dkt. 292). The Court has

20

reviewed the briefs filed in support of and in opposition to the motions and the remainder

21

of the file and hereby denies the motions for the reasons stated herein.

22
23
24
25
26
27

Local Civil Rule 5(g)(2) governs the sealing of documents filed with the Court and
provides as follows:
There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files. With
regard to dispositive motions, this presumption may be overcome only on a
compelling showing that the public’s right of access is outweighed by the
interests of the public and the parties in protecting the court’s files from
public review. With regard to nondispositive motions, this presumption may
be overcome by a showing of good cause under Rule 26(c).

28
ORDER - 1

1

“Any party opposing the unsealing must meet the required showing pursuant to 5(g)(2)

2

that the interests of the parties in protecting files, records, or documents from public

3

review continue to outweigh the public’s right of access.” Local Rule CR 5(g)(6).

4

In this case, the instant motions to seal all relate to the same set of documents.

5

During production, Kett marked these documents “Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only”

6

because Kett asserts that the documents contain “proprietary information.” Dkt. 292 at 2.

7

This assertion is without merit. First, any reference to the width of the blades or drawings

8

reflecting a requested change in the width is disclosed in the patents in suit and is already

9

public knowledge. Second, the purchase orders, testimony, and expert report regarding

10
11

what PacTool may have purchased from Kett in 1996 or 1997 can hardly be considered
proprietary information. While the prices Kett charged PacTool may have been

12

considered protected information at one time, there has been no showing that the prices of
13

fifteen years ago is proprietary information as of today. It is even more remarkable that
14
15
16
17

some of the material is marked attorney’s eyes only when the parties should have full
knowledge of what was purchased and/or ordered. Therefore, the Court denies all of the
motions and the Clerk is directed to unseal docket entries 257, 272, 284 & 293.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED this 24th day of January, 2012.

20
21

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 2