Point Ruston LLC et al v. Pacific Northwest Regional Council of The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America et al

Filing 325

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 214 Motion to Seal; denying 222 Motion to Seal.(TG)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA POINT RUSTON, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGIONAL COUNCIL OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. This matter comes before the Court on the Defendant's ("the Carpenters") unopposed motions to seal (Dkts. 214, 222). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of the motions and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motions to seal as discussed herein. I. DISCUSSION On January 8, 2010, the parties entered into a stipulated protective agreement that permits them to designate documents as "confidential," subject to court approval. See Declaration of Daniel M. Shanely (Dkt. 215), Ex. 1 (copy of stipulated protective agreement). The parties agreed that the documents pertaining to the instant motions to seal (Dkts. 214, 222) should be sealed. The parties argued that these documents presented sensitive information, the production of which would result in harm by revealing "critical ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL CASE NO. C09-5232BHS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

confidential research, development and commercial information regarding [Point Ruston's] finances, loans, marketing, sales, and potential and actual customers including confidential financial data and confidential data regarding Plaintiff's business operations." Further, they argued that "redaction of the documents is not feasible as an alternative to sealing the documents given the substantive information in the documents." Dkts. 222, 214 at 2. On June 8, 2010, the Court ordered the parties to show cause why these motions should not be denied because, in the Court's view, the documents were not appropriate for sealing. On June 15, 2010, the parties filed their responses to the show cause order. Dkts. 301, 302. These responses confirm the Court's conclusion that the documents at issue should not be sealed. The parties are reminded that this is a public court. The Court will not seal documents simply because the parties stipulate or do not oppose the sealing of certain documents. Counsel for the parties should make a thorough review of documents before moving the Court to seal the same. Because the parties have not expressed adequate reasons for sealing the documents subject to the instant motions, the Court denies the motions to seal. The Court further orders the parties to reevaluate their other pending motions to seal and determine whether client and judicial resources would be better served by removing those motions from the Court's docket. See, e.g., Dkts. 254, 266, 271, 275. Should the parties remain steadfast in their position to seal these other documents, they are further instructed to file supplemental briefing to provide adequate reasons for sealing such documents on a document-by-document basis, as opposed to the boilerplate language used in the instant and pending motions.

ORDER - 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ORDER - 3

II. ORDER The Court hereby ORDERS that the parties' motions to seal (Dkts. 214, 222) are DENIED for failure to articulate an appropriate reason to seal the documents at issue. DATED this 21st day of June, 2010.

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge