Arias v. University of Washington Tacoma

W.D. Washington

Arias v. University of Washington Tacoma

DecidedApril 22, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-05079

StatusUnknown

This text of Arias v. University of Washington Tacoma (Arias v. University of Washington Tacoma) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arias v. University of Washington Tacoma, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 CLAUDIA ARIAS, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05079-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. SEAL 13 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON TACOMA et al., 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ renewed motion to seal an exhibit 17 attached to Defendants Notice of Removal. (Dkt. No. 17; see also Dkt. Nos. 9, 14.) Defendants 18 contend they inadvertently attached an unredacted copy of an email between defense counsel 19 discussing this matter, which Defendants assert is a privileged communication. (Dkt. No. 17 at 20 2–3.) Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ motion to seal. 21 “There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” LCR5(g). However, 22 the presumption “is not absolute and can be overridden given sufficiently compelling reasons for 23 doing so.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). In 24 1 making such determination, courts consider the “public interest in understanding the judicial 2 process and whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for 3 scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.” Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 4 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995); Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. “The public interest in accessing the

5 courts does not outweigh the compelling need to honor the attorney-client privilege.” Specialty 6 Surplus Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. C06-5246 RJB, 2007 WL 2404703, at *18 (W.D. 7 Wash. Aug. 17, 2007). 8 Here, Defendants ask the Court to seal Dkt. No. 1-3 because the emails therein contain 9 privileged and confidential information. (Dkt. No. 17 at 4.) The email thread contains emails 10 between Dr. Ndura’s counsel and defense counsel, and individual defendant Keva Miller and her 11 counsel. (Dkt. No. 1-3.) These emails appear to be confidential and the Court will deem them to 12 be privileged communication between counsel and their clients prepared in anticipation of 13 litigation. Weighing Defendants’ interests against the public interest in disclosure, the Court 14 determines that Defendants have demonstrated a compelling reason to protect the emails

15 contained in Dkt. No. 1-3 from disclosure. See Specialty Surplus Ins. Co., 2007 WL 2404703, at 16 *18. 17 Thus, having considered the motion, the rest of the file, and the governing law, the Court 18 GRANTS the motion to seal. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to seal Dkt. No. 1-3. 19 Dated this 22nd day of April, 2025. 20 A 21 David G. Estudillo 22 United States District Judge

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

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 CLAUDIA ARIAS, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05079-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. SEAL 13 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON TACOMA et al., 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ renewed motion to seal an exhibit 17 attached to Defendants Notice of Removal. (Dkt. No. 17; see also Dkt. Nos. 9, 14.) Defendants 18 contend they inadvertently attached an unredacted copy of an email between defense counsel 19 discussing this matter, which Defendants assert is a privileged communication. (Dkt. No. 17 at 20 2–3.) Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ motion to seal. 21 “There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” LCR5(g). However, 22 the presumption “is not absolute and can be overridden given sufficiently compelling reasons for 23 doing so.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). In 24 1 making such determination, courts consider the “public interest in understanding the judicial 2 process and whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for 3 scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.” Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 4 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995); Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. “The public interest in accessing the

5 courts does not outweigh the compelling need to honor the attorney-client privilege.” Specialty 6 Surplus Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. C06-5246 RJB, 2007 WL 2404703, at *18 (W.D. 7 Wash. Aug. 17, 2007). 8 Here, Defendants ask the Court to seal Dkt. No. 1-3 because the emails therein contain 9 privileged and confidential information. (Dkt. No. 17 at 4.) The email thread contains emails 10 between Dr. Ndura’s counsel and defense counsel, and individual defendant Keva Miller and her 11 counsel. (Dkt. No. 1-3.) These emails appear to be confidential and the Court will deem them to 12 be privileged communication between counsel and their clients prepared in anticipation of 13 litigation. Weighing Defendants’ interests against the public interest in disclosure, the Court 14 determines that Defendants have demonstrated a compelling reason to protect the emails

15 contained in Dkt. No. 1-3 from disclosure. See Specialty Surplus Ins. Co., 2007 WL 2404703, at 16 *18. 17 Thus, having considered the motion, the rest of the file, and the governing law, the Court 18 GRANTS the motion to seal. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to seal Dkt. No. 1-3. 19 Dated this 22nd day of April, 2025. 20 A 21 David G. Estudillo 22 United States District Judge

Debbie Foltz, Consumer Action United Policyholders Texas Watch, Intervenors, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, April J. Ho Jim Mathis Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors, and Consumer Action United Policy-Holders Texas Watch, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and Steven Becker

331 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Arias v. University of Washington Tacoma, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arias-v-university-of-washington-tacoma-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack