December 12, 2013
SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE, Plaintiff,
PETER GOLDMARK, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REGARDING STIPULATED MOTION REQUESTING APPROVAL OF REDACTIONS
JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.
Before the court is Plaintiff Skokomish Indian Tribe's motion asking the court to approve the sufficiency of certain redacted documents it placed on the docket in response to the court's November 19, 2013, order (11/19/13 Order (Dkt. #103)) granting amici curiae the Hoh Tribe and Quileute Tribe's (the "Hoh and Quileute") motion to seal. (Mot. (Dkt. #104) (sealed) & (Dkt. #105) (redacted).) The Hoh and Quileute join in Plaintiff's motion. (Mot. at 2.) The court acknowledges that Plaintiff filed redacted versions of certain documents (Dkt. ##76, 82, 98, 98-2, 98-3) in response to the court's November 19, 2013, order. However, because no party has objected to the adequacy of Plaintiff's redactions, there is no dispute for the court to resolve. Accordingly, the court declines to rule on Plaintiff's motion in the absence of a disputed issue.
In its prior order, the court stated that it would place certain documents under seal. (11/19/13 Order at 6.) The court, therefore, DIRECTS the clerk to seal the following documents: docket numbers 76, 82, 98, 98-2, 98-3. The court also DIRECTS the clerk to note on the docket entry for each of these newly sealed documents the location of the redacted version of the document as indicated in the table below:
Sealed documents Redacted version of sealed documents Dkt. #76 Dkt. #104-1 Dkt. #82 Dkt. #104-2 Dkt. #98 Dkt. #104-3 Dkt. #98-2 Dkt. #104-4 Dkt. #98-3 Dkt. #104-5
Finally, the court DIRECTS the clerk to remove the seal on Plaintiff's present motion (Dkt. #104) and the associated exhibits (Dkt. ##104-1, 104-2, 104-3, 104-4, 104-5). There is no reason for Plaintiff's motion to remain under seal because the redacted portion of the unsealed version of the motion (Dkt. #105) simply quotes an unsealed and open order of the court (Dkt. #103). Furthermore, the motion does not contain information subject to the court's order granting the Hoh and Quileute's renewed motion to seal. ( See generally 11/19/13 Order.) Most importantly, however, the motion does not comply with the court's local rule regarding the sealing of court records. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 5(g). In the future, the parties must fully comply with the court's local rules when filing documents under seal.