Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Goldmark et al

Filing 111

ORDER REGARDING STIPULATED MOTION REQUESTING APPROVAL OF REDACTIONS 104 Sealed Motion; 105 Redacted Stipulated Motion, by Judge James L. Robart. (Documents Sealed and Unsealed Per Order-Page 2)(MD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE,
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

CASE NO. C13-5071JLR
ORDER REGARDING
STIPULATED MOTION
REQUESTING APPROVAL OF
REDACTIONS

PETER GOLDMARK, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

Before the court is Plaintiff Skokomish Indian Tribe’s motion asking the court to

16 approve the sufficiency of certain redacted documents it placed on the docket in response
17 to the court’s November 19, 2013, order (11/19/13 Order (Dkt. # 103)) granting amici
18 curiae the Hoh Tribe and Quileute Tribe’s (the “Hoh and Quileute”) motion to seal.
19 (Mot. (Dkt. # 104) (sealed) & (Dkt. # 105) (redacted).) The Hoh and Quileute join in
20 Plaintiff’s motion. (Mot. at 2.) The court acknowledges that Plaintiff filed redacted
21 versions of certain documents (Dkt. ## 76, 82, 98, 98-2, 98-3) in response to the court’s
22 November 19, 2013, order. However, because no party has objected to the adequacy of
ORDER- 1

1 Plaintiff’s redactions, there is no dispute for the court to resolve. Accordingly, the court
2 declines to rule on Plaintiff’s motion in the absence of a disputed issue.
3

In its prior order, the court stated that it would place certain documents under seal.

4 (11/19/13 Order at 6.) The court, therefore, DIRECTS the clerk to seal the following
5 documents: docket numbers 76, 82, 98, 98-2, 98-3. The court also DIRECTS the clerk
6 to note on the docket entry for each of these newly sealed documents the location of the
7 redacted version of the document as indicated in the table below:
8

Sealed documents

9

Dkt. # 76
Dkt. # 82
Dkt. # 98
Dkt. # 98-2
Dkt. # 98-3

10
11
12

Redacted version of sealed
documents
Dkt. # 104-1
Dkt. # 104-2
Dkt. # 104-3
Dkt. # 104-4
Dkt. # 104-5

Finally, the court DIRECTS the clerk to remove the seal on Plaintiff’s present

13 motion (Dkt. # 104) and the associated exhibits (Dkt. ## 104-1, 104-2, 104-3, 104-4, 10414 5). There is no reason for Plaintiff’s motion to remain under seal because the redacted
15 portion of the unsealed version of the motion (Dkt. # 105) simply quotes an unsealed and
16 open order of the court (Dkt. # 103). Furthermore, the motion does not contain
17 information subject to the court’s order granting the Hoh and Quileute’s renewed motion
18 to seal. (See generally 11/19/13 Order.) Most importantly, however, the motion does not
19 comply with the court’s local rule regarding the sealing of court records. See Local
20 //
21 //
22 //
ORDER- 2

1 Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 5(g). In the future, the parties must fully comply with the
2 court’s local rules when filing documents under seal.
3

Dated this 12th day of December, 2013.

5

A

6

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

4

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ORDER- 3