BioOrigyn LLC v. Fairhaven Health LLC

W.D. Washington

BioOrigyn LLC v. Fairhaven Health LLC

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided March 30, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-00285·Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE BIOORIGYN, LLC, and JOANNA ) ) Case No. 2:20-cv-00285-RAJ Plaintiffs, ) ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. ) SEAL ) ) Defendant. ) This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to seal. Dkt. # 2. The motion is unopposed. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion. “There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule (“LCR”) 5(g). “Only in rare circumstances should a party file a motion, opposition, or reply under seal.” LCR 5(g)(5). Normally the moving party must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, with evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” LCR 5(g)(3)(B). Under LCR 5(g), whichever party designates a document confidential must provide a “specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interest 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.” LCR 5(g). Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated compelling reasons to file the identified document under seal. Kamakana v. Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-81 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court has reviewed the document and finds that it contains sensitive proprietary and confidential business information. See Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp., No. 15-cv-1483 JLR, 2018 WL 2124162, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 24, 2018). The Court agrees that the Plaintiffs’ interest in protecting its confidential business information outweighs the right of public access. Douglas v. Xerox Bus. Servs. LLC, No. C12-1798-JCC, 2014 WL 12641056, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 11, 2014). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is GRANTED. Dkt. # 2. DATED this the 30th day of March, 2020.

A The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge

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

THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE BIOORIGYN, LLC, and JOANNA ) ) Case No. 2:20-cv-00285-RAJ Plaintiffs, ) ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. ) SEAL ) ) Defendant. ) This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to seal. Dkt. # 2. The motion is unopposed. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion. “There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule (“LCR”) 5(g). “Only in rare circumstances should a party file a motion, opposition, or reply under seal.” LCR 5(g)(5). Normally the moving party must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, with evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” LCR 5(g)(3)(B). Under LCR 5(g), whichever party designates a document confidential must provide a “specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interest 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.” LCR 5(g). Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated compelling reasons to file the identified document under seal. Kamakana v. Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-81 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court has reviewed the document and finds that it contains sensitive proprietary and confidential business information. See Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp., No. 15-cv-1483 JLR, 2018 WL 2124162, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 24, 2018). The Court agrees that the Plaintiffs’ interest in protecting its confidential business information outweighs the right of public access. Douglas v. Xerox Bus. Servs. LLC, No. C12-1798-JCC, 2014 WL 12641056, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 11, 2014). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is GRANTED. Dkt. # 2. DATED this the 30th day of March, 2020.

A The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge

BioOrigyn LLC v. Fairhaven Health LLC, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

BioOrigyn LLC v. Fairhaven Health LLC (BioOrigyn LLC v. Fairhaven Health LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.