Wilson v. PTT, LLC

Filing 166

ORDER denying Defendant's 151 Motion to Seal. The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal Dkt. # 154 - 156 . Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(LH)

Case 3:18-cv-05275-RSL Document 166 Filed 12/15/20 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

SEAN WILSON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. C18-5275RSL
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

PTT, LLC, d/b/a HIGH 5 GAMES, LLC,
Defendant.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

This matter comes before the Court on “High 5 Games, LLC’s Motion for Leave to File
Under Seal.” Dkt. # 151. Defendant seeks to seal excerpts of testimony from plaintiff’s
deposition on the ground that the testimony was designated as confidential by plaintiff’s counsel.
Defendant also seeks to seal excerpts of the testimony of its Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses on the
ground that the testimony relates “to [defendant’s] internal business operations.” Dkt. # 151 at 2.
Neither justification is sufficient.
“There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files,” and, absent a
showing that the public’s right of access is outweighed by the interests of the public and/or the
parties in shielding the material from public view, a seal is not appropriate. LCR 5(g). A party’s
unilateral designation of a document as confidential under a protective order does not, in and of
itself, justify a seal under LCR 5(g)(2). Plaintiff did not file a response to the motion as required
by LCR 5(g)(3) or otherwise show the legitimate private or public interests that warrant a seal,
ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO SEAL - 1

Case 3:18-cv-05275-RSL Document 166 Filed 12/15/20 Page 2 of 2

1

the injury that would result from public disclosure, or that the public’s right of access should

2

give way.

3

In support of the motion to seal the excerpts of testimony from its own witnesses,

4

defendant states only that the testimony is “confidential” and relates to “its internal business

5

operations.” Dkt. # 151 at 2. Having reviewed the documents, the Court finds nothing to suggest

6

that the redacted information is confidential. Exhibit 3 discloses a hypothetical question asked by

7

plaintiff’s counsel. Exhibit 4 discloses a sentence fragment that, standing in isolation, is

8

insubstantial and virtually meaningless.

9

The parties have not made the showing necessary to preclude public access to the

10

documents at issue. Defendant’s request for a seal is therefore DENIED. The Clerk of Court is

11

directed to unseal Dkt. # 154-156.

12
13

Dated this 15th day of December, 2020.

14

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION
TO SEAL - 2