Floyd v. Amazon.com Inc
This text of Floyd v. Amazon.com Inc (Floyd v. Amazon.com Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 The Honorable Kymberly K. Evanson
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE
10 STEVEN FLOYD, JOLENE FURDEK, and No. 2:22-cv-01599-KKE JONATHAN RYAN, on behalf of themselves 11 and all others similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware 15 corporation, and APPLE INC., a California 16 corporation,
17 Defendants. . 18 19 The parties filed a statement of discovery dispute that references and attaches material 20 designated Confidential or Highly Confidential according to the parties’ protective order. Dkt. 21 No. 182. Plaintiffs moved to provisionally file that statement and certain attachments under seal, 22 and Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. responded to request that the Court maintain those documents 23 under seal. Dkt. Nos. 181, 185. Plaintiffs also filed a redacted version of the statement on the 24 public docket. Dkt. No. 183. Because the motion to seal complies with W.D. Wash. Local Civil 25 Rule 5(g), the Court will grant it. 26 The Court may seal judicial records when a party provides a compelling reason to keep 27 information out of the public view. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Amazon has met this burden by showing that the material referenced in or attached 1 to the discovery dispute statement is confidential and competitively sensitive, and that there is no 2 less restrictive alternative to maintaining that information under seal. The Court finds that the 3 need to protect that information outweighs the public right of access to court records, particularly 4 because the Court’s review of the redacted version of those documents on the public docket 5 corroborates that Amazon’s request to seal is appropriately tailored. See Dkt. No. 186 ¶ 11. 6 The motion to seal (Dkt. No. 181) is therefore GRANTED. The statement of discovery 7 dispute and Exhibits B–G thereto (Dkt. No. 182) shall be maintained under seal. 8 9 DATED: February 11, 2025. 10 A 11 Kymberly K. Evanson 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Floyd v. Amazon.com Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/floyd-v-amazoncom-inc-wawd-2025.