CEMCO LLC v. KPSI Innovations Inc

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 10 CEMCO, LLC, CASE NO. C23-0918JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 KPSI INNOVATION, INC., et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the court is Plaintiff CEMCO, LLC’s (“CEMCO”) stipulated motion to 16 clarify the confidentiality of trial exhibit A-0082. (Mot. (Dkt. # 259).) Having reviewed 17 the motion, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law, the court 18 GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that trial exhibit A-0082 remain sealed and must be 19 filed under seal for purposes of Defendants’ appeal.1 20 1 On April 2, 2025, Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit. (NOA 21 (Dkt. # 249).) “Once a notice of appeal is filed, the district court is divested of jurisdiction over the matters being appealed.” Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Southwest Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 22 1166 (9th Cir. 2001). The parties do not address the court’s jurisdiction. (See generally Mot.) 1 On September 20, 2023, the court granted CEMCO’s unopposed motion to file 2 under seal a license agreement between CEMCO and Clarkwestern Dietrich Building 3 Systems LLC (“ClarkDietrich”). (9/20/23 Order (Dkt. # 41).) The license agreement

4 was designated “highly confidential” under a protective order entered in a prior litigation. 5 (See 9/20/23 Blickensderfer Decl. (Dkt. ## 39, 40 (sealed)) ¶¶ 4-5, Ex. A.) On March 13, 6 2024, the court entered a protective order governing confidential material in this action. 7 (3/13/24 Order (Dkt. # 74).) In relevant part, the court’s order included provisions for 8 applying confidentiality designations to material in this action; filing such designated

9 material; and for challenging confidentiality designations. (See id. at 2, 4-6.) 10 On December 6, 2024, at the jury trial in this case, the parties stipulated to the 11 admissibility of the sealed license agreement between CEMCO and ClarkDietrich as trial 12 exhibit A-0082, and the exhibit was admitted into evidence. (12/6/24 Tr. (Dkt. # 232) 13 at 684:7-13); (Ex. List (Dkt. # 210) at 17 (indicating admission of trial exhibit A-0082).)

14 At the time, the parties did not observe that the license agreement had been filed under 15 seal. (See generally 12/6/24 Tr. at 684.) The court advised that trial exhibit A-0082 was 16 “admitted and may be published when necessary.” (12/6/24 Tr. at 684:11-12). The 17 parties did not publish the exhibit to the jury during the trial. (See generally Mot. at 2; 18 12/6/24 Tr.)

19 20 21 The court, however, concludes that it retains jurisdiction to clarify the confidentiality of trial exhibits under an exception for judicial acts that “preserve[] the status quo and d[o] not 22 materially alter the status of the case on appeal.” Nat. Res. Def. Council, 242 F.3d at 1166. 1 Accordingly, pursuant to the court’s order granting leave to file the license 2 agreement between CEMCO and ClarkDietrich under seal (see 9/20/23 Order), the court 3 concludes that the license agreement between CEMCO and ClarkDietrich remains under

4 seal, and that the parties must file trial exhibit A-0082 under seal for purposes of 5 Defendants’ appeal. Neither party moved to unseal the license agreement or attempted to 6 use the procedures in the court’s protective order to challenge the license agreement’s 7 confidentiality designation. (See generally Dkt.) Additionally, although trial exhibit A- 8 0082 was admitted into evidence at trial, it was not published, and it has never been filed

9 on the docket except under seal. (Id.) Therefore, it has never been publicly viewed or 10 viewable in this action. 11 For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS the stipulated motion (Dkt. # 259) 12 and ORDERS that trial exhibit A-0082 be filed under seal for purposes of the parties’ 13 appeal.

14 15 Dated this 14th day of May, 2025. A 16 JAMES L. ROBART 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22