Fairhaven Health LLC v. BioOrigyn LLC

Opinion

1 THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2 3 4

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE

10 FAIRHAVEN HEALTH, LLC, ) ) 11 Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 2:19-cv-01860-RAJ 12 v. )

) 13 BIO-ORIGYN, LLC, JOANNA ) ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS ELLINGTON, AKA JOANNA ) TO SEAL 14 CLIFTON, AND DENNIS CLIFTON, ) ) 15 Defendant. )

16 17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motions to seal. Dkt. ## 2, 16. The 18 motions are unopposed. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motions. 19 “There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Western 20 District of Washington Local Civil Rule (“LCR”) 5(g). “Only in rare circumstances 21 should a party file a motion, opposition, or reply under seal.” LCR 5(g)(5). Normally 22 the moving party must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and 23 the reasons for keeping a document under seal, with evidentiary support from 24 declarations where necessary.” LCR 5(g)(3)(B). 25 Under LCR 5(g), whichever party designates a document confidential must 26 provide a “specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for 27 keeping a document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or 1 public interest that warrant the relief sought; (ii) the injury that will result if the relief 2 sought is not granted; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not 3 sufficient.” LCR 5(g). 4 Upon review of the briefings of the parties and the remainder of the record, the 5 Court finds that the parties have demonstrated compelling reasons to file the identified 6 documents under seal. Kamakana v. Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-81 (9th Cir. 7 2006). The Court has reviewed the documents and finds that they contain sensitive 8 proprietary and confidential business information. See Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp., 9 No. 15-cv-1483 JLR, 2018 WL 2124162, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 24, 2018). The 10 Court agrees that the parties’ interests in protecting their confidential business 11 information outweighs the right of public access. Douglas v. Xerox Bus. Servs. LLC, 12 No. C12-1798-JCC, 2014 WL 12641056, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 11, 2014). The Court 13 also finds the proposed redacted version of the complaint, which is to be filed on the 14 public docket, to be reasonable. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions to seal are 15 GRANTED. Dkt. ## 2, 16. 16 17 DATED this the 30th day of March, 2020.

19 A

20 21 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 22

23 24 25 26 27