Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Delashaw v. Seattle Times Co.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

July 9, 2018


v.
SEATTLE TIMES COMPANY, and CHARLES COBBS, Defendants.

          HARRIGAN LEYH FARMER & THOMSEN LLP ARTHUR W. HARRIGAN, JR, TYLER L, FARMER, KRISTIN E, BALLINGER, ATTORNEYS FOR JOHNNY B. DELASHAW, JR.

          LAW OFFICES OF IRWIN H. SCHWARTZ IRWIN H. SCHWARTZ, ATTORNEYS FOR JOHNNY B. DELASHAW, JR.

          SUMMIT LAW GROUP FLLC JESSICA L. GOLDMAN, CHRISTOPHER T. WION, TERESA R. RODELA ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT SEATTLE TIMES COMPANY

          SOMERVILLE, LLC JOHN Q. SOMERVILLE, ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CHARLES COBBS

          MCNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN PLLC MALAIKA M. EATO, JEHIEL I. BAER, ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT CHARLES COBBS

          STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO SEAL PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT

          THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Johnny B. Delashaw, Jr. (Dr, Delashaw), Defendant Charles Cobbs (Dr. Cobbs), and Defendant Seattle Times Company (Seattle Times) jointly request the Court seal Dr. Delashaw's Amended Complaint (Dkt. #20).

         II. BACKGROUND

         Dr. Delashaw filed his Amended Complaint on June 25, 2018. Dr. Cobbs notified Dr. Delashaw on July 2 that two sentences in the Amended Complaint reference and quote a document that had been inadvertently produced to Dr. Delashaw in a state regulatory proceeding, which Dr. Cobbs had timely clawed back on the basis of a work-product claim. The parties agree that this document was inadvertently produced, information from this document was inadvertently included in Dr. Delashaw's Amended Complaint, and that Dr. Cobbs did not waive his work-product claim regarding this document by inadvertently producing it. In response to Dr. Cobb's July 2 notification, Dr. Delashaw filed a praecipe on July 6 and attached a corrected Amended Complaint to take the place of the original Amended Complaint (Dkt. #25).

         III. ARGUMENT

         "[D]istrict courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases." Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S.Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016). FRCP 5.2(d) and LCR 5(g) govern the sealing of filings containing confidential or sensitive information. LCR 5(g)(3) requires a motion to seal a document to include:

(A) a certification that the party has met and conferred with all other parties in an attempt to reach agreement on the need to file the document under seal, to minimize the amount of material filed under i seal, and to explore redaction and other alternatives to filing under . seal; this certification must list the date, manner, and participants of the conference;
(B) a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the:. reasons for keeping a document under seal, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.