Erickson v. Biogen, Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 12, 2020
• Docket: 2:18-cv-01029
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 DANITA ERICKSON, CASE NO. C18-1029-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 BIOGEN, INC, 13 Defendant. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to seal (Dkt. No. 187) exhibits 16 filed in support of Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s motion for post-trial relief (Dkt. No. 185). 17 Having thoroughly considered the filings and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument 18 unnecessary and hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion for the reasons 19 explained herein. 20 “[T]here is a strong presumption of public access to [the Court’s] files.” W.D. Wash. 21 Local Civ. R. 5(g)(3). The presumption of public access may be overcome if the Court finds a 22 compelling reason to seal and articulates a factual basis for its decision. See Kamakana v. City & 23 Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court previously entered the 24 parties’ stipulated protective order, which limits the disclosure of the parties’ confidential 25 information. (See Dkt. No. 10.) Defendant designated the exhibits at issue as “confidential” 26 pursuant to the protective order, as they contain Defendant’s sensitive information. (See Dkt. No. 1 187 at 1–2.) The protective order provides that “the protections conferred by this agreement do 2 not cover information that is in the public domain or becomes part of the public domain through 3 trial or otherwise.” (Dkt. No. 10 at 2.) Five of the seven documents—Trial Exhibits 25, 27, 33, 4 37, and 43—were admitted at trial. Thus, the protective order no longer requires maintaining 5 these five documents under seal. In contrast, A-31 and Exhibit D (BGN00001571-1573) were 6 not admitted at trial. They contain Defendant’s confidential information, and thus remain subject 7 to the protective order. 8 Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to refile Trial Exhibits 25, 27, 33, 37, 43 to make them 9 publicly available. The Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain Docket Number 188 under seal until 10 further order of the Court. 11 DATED this 12th day of February 2020. A 12 13 14 John C. Coughenour 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26