United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER GRANTING PARTIES' MOTIONS TO SEAL
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Clean Crawl,
Inc.'s (“CCI”) motion to seal an exhibit to
its motion to compel discovery, Dkt. 141, CCI's motion to
seal an unredacted version of its opposition to Defendant
Crawl Space Cleaning Pros' (“CSCP”) second
motion for partial summary judgment, Dkt. 146, and CSCP's
motion to seal an unredacted version of its second motion for
partial summary judgment, Dkt. 152. The Court has considered
the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the
motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants the
motions for the reasons stated herein.
a “strong presumption of access to judicial records
applies fully to dispositive pleadings, ”
“‘compelling reasons' must be shown to seal
judicial records attached to a dispositive motion.”
Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm
Mutual Auto. Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th
Cir. 2003)). “‘[C]ompelling reasons' may
exist if sealing is required to prevent judicial documents
from being used ‘as sources of business information
that might harm a litigant's competitive
standing.'” Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola,
Inc., No. C10-1823JLR, 2012 WL 5476846, at *1 (W.D.
Wash. Nov. 12, 2012) (quoting In re Electronic Arts,
298 Fed.Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008)).
motion to seal must include (1) a certification that the
parties have conferred on the need to file the document under
seal and (2) “a specific statement of the applicable
legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under
seal.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 5(g)(3). This
specific statement requires an explanation of “(i) the
legitimate private or public interests that warrant the
relief sought; (ii) the injury that will result if the relief
sought is not granted; and (iii) why a less restrictive
alternative to the relief sought is not sufficient.”
CCI seeks to seal an excerpt from the deposition testimony of
CSCP's President Richard Herron as CSCP's corporate
representative, offered as Exhibit 5 to Dkt. 140, the
Declaration of John Butler. Dkt. 141. The deposition was
taken subject to the Attorney's Eyes Only designation in
the parties' protective order. Dkt. 141 at 2. CCI's
counsel affirms that he conferred with CSCP's counsel on
the need to file the excerpt under seal and on the absence of
a less restrictive alternative and explains that the excerpt
contains confidential business information which would harm
CSCP's business interest if made public. Id. at
2-3. Therefore, the Court grants the motion.
CCI seeks to seal an unredacted version of its opposition to
CSCP's second motion for partial summary judgment. Dkt.
146. CCI's counsel affirms that he conferred with
CSCP's counsel on the need to file the brief under seal.
Dkt. 146 at 3. CCI explains that though a redacted version of
the brief is already filed in the public docket, CCI is
providing an unredacted version under seal at the Court's
request so that the record is complete. Id. at 1-2.
The redacted information, which requires filing an unredacted
version under seal, constitutes specific historical, present,
and projected financial data and other “critical
confidential proprietary business information” which
would harm CCI's business interests if made public.
Id. at 2-3. Therefore, the Court grants the motion.
CSCP seeks to seal an unredacted version of its second motion
for partial summary judgment. Dkt. 152-1. A redacted version
is already filed in the docket. Dkt. 120. The redacted
information, which requires filing an unredacted version
under seal, consists of CSCP's confidential business
information and deposition testimony taken subject to the
Attorney's Eyes Only designation in the parties'
protective order. Dkt. 152-1 at 3-4. Topics include marketing
and advertising techniques and budgets, sales and
distribution figures, and financial figures and projections,
information which would harm CSCP's business interests if
revealed. Id. at 4. Therefore, the Court grants the
it is hereby ORDERED that CCI's motion
to seal, Dkt. 141, is GRANTED, CCI's
motion to seal, Dkt. 146 is GRANTED, and
CSCP's motion to seal, Dkt. 152, is
CCI's first motion to seal, Dkt. 141, CCI filed both the
motion and the exhibit as a single document in the docket
under seal. However, it appears CCI only intends to maintain
the exhibit under seal. Therefore, ...