Ameritek USA Inc v. Conceptra Biosciences LLC

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided January 16, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-01090·Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 AMERITEK USA, INC., et al., CASE NO. C23-1090-JCC 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 CONCEPTRA BIOSCIENCES, LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to seal (Dkt. No. 53) their 16 motion for attorney fees (Dkt. No. 54). While the public has a common law right to inspect and 17 copy public records, including those from judicial proceedings, these rights are not absolute. 18 They must yield when (1) sealing a document serves a compelling interest, (2) that is 19 substantially likely to be harmed if the document is not sealed, and (3) there are no less 20 restrictive alternatives for protecting the interest. See United States v. Doe, 870 F.3d 991, 998 21 (9th Cir. 2017). Given the nature of the information contained in the materials at issue, these 22 criteria are met here. Accordingly, the motion to seal (Dkt. No. 53) is GRANTED and the Clerk 23 is DIRECTED to maintain Docket Number 54 under seal. 24 // 25 // 26 // 1 DATED this 16th day of January 2024. A 2 3 4 John C. Coughenour 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ameritek USA Inc v. Conceptra Biosciences LLC, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Ameritek USA Inc v. Conceptra Biosciences LLC (Ameritek USA Inc v. Conceptra Biosciences LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. John Doe
870 F.3d 991 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)