Clean Crawl, Inc. v. Crawl Space Cleaning Pros, Inc.

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA 7 CLEAN CRAWL, INC., CASE NO. C17-1340 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ 9 v. MOTIONS TO SEAL INC., 11 Defendant. 12

13 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Clean Crawl, Inc.’s (“Clean 14 Crawl”) motions to seal, Dkts. 169, 209, 224, 229, 236,1 and Defendant Crawl Space 15 Cleaning Pros, Inc.’s (“Crawl Pros”) motion to seal, Dkts. 171, 241. The Court has 16 considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motions and the 17 remainder of the file and hereby grants the motions for the reasons stated herein. 18 19

20 1 Dkt. 210 contains the material Clean Crawl moves to file under seal in Dkt. 209. Dkt. 223 contains the proposed order which corresponds to the motion in Dkt. 224, and Dkt. 225 21 contains the exhibits the motion seeks to maintain under seal. Dkt. 230 contains a declaration in support of the motion to seal contained in Dkt. 229. Dkt. 238 contains a declaration in support of 22 the motion to seal contained in Dkt. 236. 2 Because a “strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to

3 dispositive pleadings, . . . ‘compelling reasons’ must be shown to seal judicial records 4 attached to a dispositive motion.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 5 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Company, 331 6 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “‘[C]ompelling reasons’ may exist if sealing is required 7 to prevent judicial documents from being used ‘as sources of business information that 8 might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.’” Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., No.

9 C10-1823JLR, 2012 WL 5476846, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 12, 2012) (quoting In re 10 Electronic Arts, 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008)). 11 A motion to seal must include (1) a certification that the parties have conferred on 12 the need to file the document under seal and (2) “a specific statement of the applicable 13 legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal.” Local Rules W.D.

14 Wash. LCR 5(g)(3). This specific statement requires an explanation of “(i) the legitimate 15 private or public interests that warrant the relief sought; (ii) the injury that will result if 16 the relief sought is not granted; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to the relief 17 sought is not sufficient.” LCR 5(g)(3)(B). 18 First, Clean Crawl seeks to seal Exhibits 2 and 3 to the Declaration of John Butler

19 offered in support of its motions in limine, containing excerpts from Crawl Pros’s 20 corporate deposition and the deposition of Crawl Pros’s president Richard Herron which 21 discuss Crawl Pros’s corporate finances. Dkt. 169 at 1–2. The motion confirms that the 22 parties have conferred, a less restrictive alternative is not available, and the excerpts 1 contain confidential financial projections and information which would harm Crawl 2 Pros’s business interests if made public. Id. at 2. Clean Crawl later refiled its motions in

3 limine and refiled the same motion to seal at Dkt. 209. Therefore, the Court grants both 4 motions. 5 Second, Crawl Pros seeks to file an exhibit in support of its motions in limine 6 under seal and to file an unreadacted copy of its motions in limine under seal. Dkt. 171. 7 The motion confirms that the parties have conferred and the material at issue is portions 8 of Clean Crawl’s corporate deposition discussing Clean Crawl’s marketing strategies and

9 revenue projections which would harm Clean Crawl’s business interests if made public. 10 Id. at 2–5. Therefore, the Court grants the motion. 11 Third, Clean Crawl seeks to file under seal Exhibits 2 and 3 to the Declaration of 12 John Butler containing each party’s expert reports on economic damages offered in 13 support of its supplemental motions in limine. Dkt. 224. The motion confirms that the

14 parties have conferred, a less restrictive alternative is not available, and the exhibits 15 constitute confidential business information and projections which could be used against 16 each side by competitors. Id. at 2–3. Therefore, the Court grants the motion. 17 Fourth, Clean Crawl seeks to file under seal Exhibits 1 (excerpts from the 18 corporate deposition of Clean Crawl discussing internal financial tracking, costs to create

19 marketing materials, and customer confusion), 3 (Clean Crawl’s Rule 26(a)(1) initial 20 disclosures containing revenue and goodwill valuations and projections), 4 (Clean 21 Crawl’s expert report containing business valuation and projections), 5 (Crawl Pros’ 22 expert report containing business valuation and projections), and 6 (excerpts from the 1 deposition of Nadine Sanchez discussing employee recruitment between the companies) 2 to the Declaration of John Butler in support of its opposition to Crawl Pros’s motions in

3 limine. Dkt. 229. The motion confirms that the parties have conferred, a less restrictive 4 alternative is not available, and the sealed material consists of confidential business 5 information which could be used against each side by competitors. Id. at 2–3. Therefore, 6 the Court grants the motion. 7 Fifth, Clean Crawl seeks to file under seal an unredacted version of its 8 supplemental briefing to the parties’ motions in limine. Dkt. 236. The supplemental brief

9 redacts the cost of past and future corrective advertising and gross profits Clean Crawl’s 10 expert calculates in her expert report which is filed under seal. The motion confirms that 11 the parties have conferred, there is not a less restrictive alternative, and the redacted 12 information is confidential business information which could be used against Clean 13 Crawl by competitors. Id. at 2–3. Therefore, the Court grants the motion.

14 Sixth, Crawl Pros seeks to file under seal an unredacted version of its motion to 15 exclude expert opinion and a copy of its rebuttal expert report. Dkt. 241. The motion 16 confirms that the parties have conferred and have not identified a less restrictive 17 alternative to filing under seal but does not articulate a specific statement of the interest 18 protected by maintaining the material under seal. However, as the Court has herein

19 granted motions to seal expert reports as containing confidential business information 20 which could be used against each side by competitors, the Court grants the motion on that 21 basis as well. 22 2 Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties’ motions to seal, Dkts. 169,

3 171, 209, 224, 229, 236, and 241 are GRANTED. The Clerk shall also terminate Dkts. 4 210, 223, 225, 230, and 238, as they either contain documents improperly identified as 5 motions or documents which are duplicative of the motions granted (as explained in 6 footnote 1). 7 Dated this 28th day of February, 2020. A 8 9 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 10 United States District Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22