Digital Mentor, Inc. v. Ovivo USA, LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 30, 2020
• Docket: 2:17-cv-01935
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 DIGITAL MENTOR, INC., a Delaware 9 corporation, 10 Case No. 2:17-CV-01935-RAJ Plaintiff,

11 ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO v. SEAL 12 OVIVO USA, LLC, a Delaware 13 corporation, 14 Defendant. 15

16 This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to seal. Dkt. # 121. For the 17 reasons below the Court STRIKES the motion. 18 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public 19 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & 20 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 21 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing 22 request, “a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 23 F.3d at 1178. (internal quotation marks omitted). 24 Additionally, in the Western District of Washington, parties moving to seal 25 documents must comply with the procedures established by Civil Local Rule 5(g). 26 Pursuant to Local Rule 5(g), the party who designates a document confidential must 27 1 provide a “specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping 2 a document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public 3 interest that warrant the relief sought; (ii) the injury that will result if the relief sought is 4 not granted; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not sufficient.” 5 W.D. Wash. Local Rules LCR 5(g)(3)(B). Furthermore, where the parties have entered 6 into a litigation agreement or stipulated protective order governing the exchange of 7 documents in discovery, a party wishing to file a confidential document it obtained from 8 another party in discovery may file a motion to seal but need not satisfy subpart (3)(B). 9 Instead, the party who designated the document confidential must satisfy subpart (3)(B) in 10 its response to the motion to seal or in a stipulated motion. Id. 11 The documents for sealing were designated “CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ 12 EYES ONLY” by Plaintiff Digital Mentor, Inc. (“DMI”) pursuant to the parties’ Stipulated 13 Protective Order (Dkt. 109). As Defendant indicates in its motion, “DMI is expected to 14 provide the basis for filing under seal in response to this Motion to Seal.” Dkt. # 121. No 15 such basis for sealing has been provided by DMI. Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the 16 motion for seal for failure to comply with Local Rule 5(g). 17 For the reasons stated above, the Court STRIKES the motion. Dkt. # 121. 18 19 DATED this 30th day of January, 2020.

20 A 21

22 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27