American Northwest Distributors Inc v. Four Roses Distillery LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA AMERICAN NORTHWEST Case No. 2:22-cv-01265-TMC DISTRIBUTORS INC., ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO SEAL Plaintiff, v. FOUR ROSES DISTILLERY LLC, Defendant.

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Before the Court are the parties’ stipulated motion to seal (Dkt. 85) and Defendant Four Roses Distillery LLC’s unopposed motion to seal. Dkt. 94. The documents at issue are unredacted versions of: (1) Exhibit D (containing Plaintiff American Northwest Distributors Inc.’s correspondence and product purchasing information) (Dkt. 83-1) to the Declaration of Anton Fedechkin Wright in support of American Northwest’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt. 81; (2) Exhibit E (containing product purchase order information) (Dkt. 82-1), Exhibit F (an expert report by Rebekah A. Smith analyzing the parties’ commercial and financial information) (Dkt. 82-2), and Exhibit G (an expert report by Neil J. Beaton analyzing the parties’ commercial and financial information) (Dkt. 82-3) to the Declaration of Bryan C. Graff in support of American Northwest’s Motion

for Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt. 80; (3) Exhibit O (American Northwest’s financial aging spreadsheets) (see Dkt. 77-15), Exhibit JJ (an expert rebuttal report by Neal J. Beaton) (Dkt. 77-36), Exhibit MM (an expert rebuttal report by Rebekah A. Smith) (see Dkt. 77-39), and Exhibit PP (an expert report by Neil J. Beaton) (see Dkt. 77-42) to the Declaration of Anne Dorshimer in support of Four Roses’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Daubert motion, Dkt. 77; and (4) Exhibit B (transcript excerpts from the deposition of David Steiner) (Dkt. 92) and Exhibit D (American Northwest’s financial aging spreadsheets) (Dkt. 93) to the

Declaration of Alissa Harris in support of Four Roses’ Response to American Northwest’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt. 91. A court considering a sealing request starts with “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to overcome this presumption and seal court records relating to a dispositive motion must provide “compelling reasons” that are “sufficiently specific” for doing so. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir. 2006). The parties move to seal documents filed in support of their dispositive motions, see Dkt. 85, 94; see supra Sec. I. After review of the documents at issue, the Court finds that the documents meet the compelling reasons standard articulated in Kamakana because they contain sensitive proprietary commercial and financial information about the parties that could be used by third party competitors. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183. The parties have articulated sufficiently specific reasons such information should remain confidential. See id; Dkt. 85, 94. Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, the Court ORDERS as follows: • The parties’ stipulated motion to seal (Dkt. 85) is GRANTED and the documents at Dkt. 77-15, 77-39, 77-42; Dkt. 82-1–3; and Dkt. 83-1 shall remain SEALED. • Four Roses’ unopposed motion to seal (Dkt. 94) is GRANTED and the documents at Dkt. 77-36; Dkt. 92, and 93 shall remain SEALED. Dated this 26 day of June, 2024. A Tiffany M. Cartwright United States District Judge