Greenberg v. Amazon.com Inc

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 ALVIN GREENBERG, et al., Cause No. 2:21-cv-00898-RSL 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN 9 v. PART MOTION TO SEAL 10 (Dkt. 147) AMAZON.COM, INC., 11 Defendant. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Provisionally Seal Another 14 15 Party’s Materials.” Dkt. 147. “There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s 16 files.” LCR 5(g); see also Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 17 2003). Ordinarily, a party must show compelling reasons to shield a court-filed document from 18 19 public view. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2016) 20 (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). But 21 where materials are attached to a discovery motion unrelated (or only tangentially related) to the 22 23 merits of the case, a good cause standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097, 1099. 23 The standard comes from Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), which authorizes limitations on disclosures “to 25 protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or 26 27 expense.” The issue when considering a request to seal documents filed in the context of a 28 1 discovery dispute is whether the producing party’s need for confidentiality outweighs the 2 public’s need for access. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). 3 To the extent defendant seeks to withhold documents or materials solely because they 4 5 “are distributed only within Amazon and are not shared publicly,” Dkt. 159 at ¶ 3, defendant has 6 not shown that public disclosure would cause annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue 7 burden. In contrast, plaintiffs’ motion puts Amazon’s document preservation efforts squarely at 8 9 issue, and the company’s document retention policies will allow the public to understand 10 Amazon’s default retention practices and if they were impacted by the filing of this litigation. In 11 the absence of a showing that confidentiality is needed, Dkt. 149-1 and 149-2 (Exhibits B and C 12 13 to the Reply Declaration of Ben M. Harrington) will be unsealed. 14 Similarly, the fact that Amazon does not share internal correspondence with the public is 15 insufficient to warrant a seal. To the extent the correspondence shares the type of personally 16 17 identifying information set forth in LCR 5.2(a) or an employee’s phone number or email 18 address, that information can be redacted. If Amazon submits properly redacted versions of Dkt. 19 149-4 through 149-8 within seven days of the date of this Order, those documents will remain 20 21 under seal. If redacted versions are not timely submitted, Dkt. 149-4 through 149-8 will be 22 unsealed. 23 Amazon has shown that the other three documents at issue contain confidential 23 25 information which, if shared with the public, could commercially disadvantage defendant. 26

27 28 1 For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to seal (Dkt. 147) is GRANTED in 2 part: 3 • The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal Dkt. 149-1 and 149-2. 4 5 • Exhibits D, J, and K to the Reply Declaration of Ben M. Harrington, Dkt. 149-3, 149-9, 6 and 149-10, will remain under seal. The seal is provisional, however: if the sealed materials are 7 so germane to the discovery issue that they are quoted or their substance is otherwise disclosed 8 9 in the Court’s order, the seal will be lifted as to those portions of the documents. 10 • Amazon may, within seven days of the date of this Order, submit properly redacted 11 versions of Dkt. 149-4 through 149-8. If redacted versions are timely submitted, those 12 13 documents will remain under seal. If redacted versions are not timely submitted, Dkt. 149-4 14 through 149-8 will be unsealed 15

16 Dated this 12th day of September, 2025. 17

18 A

19 Robert S. Lasnik 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 23 25 26 27 28