D.T. v. NECA/IBEW Family Medical Care Plan

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 31, 2019
• Docket: 2:17-cv-00004
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

The Honorable Richard A. Jones 1

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 D.T., by and through his parents and guardians, K.T. and W.T., individually, on behalf of similarly 10 situated individuals, and on behalf of the NO. 2:17-cv-00004-RAJ NECA/IBEW Family Medical Care Plan, 11

Plaintiff, 12 ORDER STRIKING THE PARTIES’ v. MOTIONS TO SEAL 13 NECA/IBEW FAMILY MEDICAL CARE PLAN, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE 14 NECA/IBEW FAMILY MEDICAL CARE PLAN, 15 SALVATORE J. CHILIA, ROBERT P. KLEIN, DARRELL L. MCCUBBINS, GEARY HIGGINS, 16 LAWRENCE J. MOTER, JR., KEVIN TIGHE, JERRY SIMS, AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL 17 MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NECA/IBEW FAMILY MEDICAL CARE PLAN, 18 Defendants. 19 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motions to Seal/Redact 20 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5(g) (Dkt. Nos. 65, 76, 83, 96, and 108) and Defendants’ 21 Motions to Seal (Dkt. Nos. 60, 70, and 92). For the reasons stated below, the Court 22 STRIKES the parties’ motions. 23 I. DISCUSSION 24 The Court previously set forth the factual background of this case and will not 25 repeat it here. “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy 26 1 v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. 2 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when 3 considering a sealing request, “a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting 4 point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. (internal quotation marks omitted). 5 Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court 6 documents for the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research, 7 development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). As the Supreme 8 Court has recognized, sealing may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being 9 used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive 10 standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. The party seeking to seal a judicial record, however, must show that “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh 11 the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 12 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (internal citations omitted). “Broad allegations of harm, 13 unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 14 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 15 Additionally, in the Western District of Washington, parties moving to seal 16 documents, even if it is a stipulated motion, must comply with the procedures 17 established by Civil Local Rule 5(g). Pursuant to Local Rule 5(g), the party who 18 designates a document confidential must provide a “specific statement of the applicable 19 legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an 20 explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interest that warrant the relief sought; 21 (ii) the injury that will result if the relief sought is not granted; and (iii) why a less 22 restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not sufficient.” W.D. Wash. Local Rules 23 LCR 5(g)(3)(B). Furthermore, where the parties have entered into a litigation agreement 24 or stipulated protective order governing the exchange of documents in discovery, a party 25 wishing to file a confidential document it obtained from another party in discovery may 26 1 designated the document confidential must satisfy subpart (3)(B) in its response to the 2 motion to seal or in a stipulated motion. Id. 3 While both parties have filed motions to seal, it is clear that almost all the 4 documents have been designated as confidential by Defendants. Accordingly, the 5 burden is on Defendants to satisfy subpart (3)(B). See W.D. Wash. Local Rules LCR 6 5(g)(3)(B). As an initial matter, the Court notes that many of the pending motions to 7 seal fail to comply with the Local Rules and seek relief that is substantially overbroad. 8 Defendants frequently rely on boilerplate assertions of harm to business interests in 9 attempts to seal documents in their entirety without demonstrating why no less restrictive 10 alternative would suffice. Furthermore, Defendants have clearly not explored alternatives such as redacting, as they request the Court to permit them to withdraw the 11 exhibits and “consider whether submission in redacted form is possible,” if their motions 12 to seal are not granted. Dkt. # 105. This is unacceptable. Defendants are abusing the 13 motions to seal process to drag the Court through an inefficient, convoluted briefing 14 process that serves no purpose other than to confuse, overwhelm, and distract the Court. 15 Accordingly, the Court will not entertain the pending motions. 16 II. CONCLUSION 17 The Parties are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer and file a joint statement 18 concisely consolidating their positions on any materials for sealing by November 15, 19 2019. Consistent with the Court’s statement on the October 31, 2019 teleconference, 20 Defendants should take the lead in preparing the joint statement since most, if not all, of 21 the documents have been designated as confidential by Defendants. The joint statement 22 must include (i) specific examples of harm from the designating party that would result 23 from allowing the submitted materials, or portions thereof, into the public domain and 24 (ii) articulated reasons as to why alternatives to sealing would be insufficient. The 25 26 1 parties should also indicate those documents that were previously sealed which they no 2 longer believe should remain sealed. 3 The joint statement must include a chart of the parties’ positions in the form 4 below. Additionally, the parties must jointly submit to the Court a courtesy copy of the 5 proposed materials for sealing in a tabbed three-ring binder in the order they appear in 6 the chart. Where the designating party is proposing that only portions of a document be 7 sealed, the redacted version shall immediately precede the document for sealing in the 8 tabbed binder. 9 ECF Detailed Designating Specific Reasons why alternatives No. Document Party Harm to to sealing, such as 10 Description Business redactions, are insufficient 11 Interests

12 For the reasons stated above, the Court STRIKES the parties’ Motions to Seal 13 (Dkt. Nos. 60, 65, 70, 76, 83, 92, 96, and 108). 14 15 DATED this 31st day of October, 2019. 16

17 A

18 19 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 20 United States District Judge

21 22 23 24 25 26