Garner v. Amazon.com Inc

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 KAELI GARNER, et al., Cause No. C21-0750RSL 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING 9 v. MOTION TO SEAL 10 AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court on “Defendants’ Motion to Seal Exhibits C-G 14 15 Attached to the Declaration of Melissa Lawton in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Protective 16 Order,” Dkt. # 204, and “Defendants’ Motion to Seal Portions of Reply Brief and Exhibits in 17 Support of Motion for Protective Order.” Dkt. # 205. A redacted version of the Reply has been 18 19 filed at Dkt. # 207 for public viewing. While Amazon’s reliance on Phillips v. General Motors 20 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002), is misplaced,1 the documents at issue contain internal, non- 21 public information about product development, feature upgrades/alternatives, and marketing 22 23 23 25

26 1 The protective order in this case does not authorize the filing of any particular document under seal. Rather, it defines various categories of confidential documents for purposes of access/ 27 dissemination during discovery and requires the parties to follow the procedures and standards of LCR 28 5(g) if a party seeks permission to file material under seal. Dkt. # 81 at 9. LCR 5(g) expressly 1 plans that have been maintained in confidence. The motions to seal are, therefore, GRANTED. 2 Dkt. # 195-3, # 195-4, # 195-5, # 195-6, # 195-7, and # 206 shall remain under seal. 3

4 Dated this 28th day of September, 2023. 5

6 Robert S. Lasnik 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 25 26 27 28