In re: Amazon Return Policy Litigation

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided April 29, 2026·No. 2:23-cv-01372·Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE 7 IN RE: AMAZON RETURN POLICY CASE NO. 2:23-cv-1372 ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL 9

10 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to seal. Dkt. No. 11 168. Plaintiffs seek to seal two filings: the unredacted Declaration of John Holton, 12 Dkt. No. 169, and Exhibit A to that declaration, an unredacted copy of the parties’ 13 Settlement Agreement, Dkt. No. 170. The Holton Declaration contains quotations 14 from and references to documents that Defendant Amazon produced in discovery 15 and designated as confidential. The unredacted Settlement Agreement includes the 16 dollar value of timely and valid opt-out requests that would trigger Amazon’s right 17 to terminate the settlement—a figure that both parties seek to keep confidential. 18 The party seeking to keep material filed under seal must meet either the 19 “good cause” or “compelling interest” standard. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 20 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). The “compelling interest” test 21 applies if “the motion [related to which the materials are filed] is more than 22 tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Id. Plaintiffs invoke the good cause 23 standard. The Court finds the compelling interest test more appropriate given that 1 the proposed Settlement Agreement and the declaration supporting it are more 2 than tangentially related to the merits of the case. See Hefler v. Wells Fargo & Co.,

3 No. 16-CV-05479-JST, 2018 WL 4207245, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2018) 4 (“Preliminary approval of a settlement is an issue more than tangentially related to 5 the merits of the case, and therefore the ‘compelling reasons’ standard applies.”). 6 Under the “compelling interest” test, the Court must “conscientiously 7 balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep 8 certain judicial records secret.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

9 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation modified). The Court may seal records only if it 10 “base[s] its decision on a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its 11 ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (citation and quotation 12 omitted). “The burden is on the party requesting a protective order to demonstrate 13 that (1) the material in question is a trade secret or other confidential information 14 within the scope of Rule 26(c), and (2) disclosure would cause an identifiable, 15 significant harm.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th

16 Cir. 2003) (citation modified). 17 The Court is satisfied that there are compelling interests in keeping the 18 unredacted Holton Declaration and unredacted Settlement Agreement under seal. 19 Because the Holton Declaration quotes and references confidential information, its 20 unredacted disclosure may cause Amazon (the producing party) to be commercially 21 disadvantaged or prejudiced. Dkt. No. 77 at 2 (Stipulated Protective Order defining

22 confidential material). The unredacted Settlement Agreement includes the total 23 value of timely and valid opt-out requests that would trigger Amazon’s termination 1 right, a figure third parties could use for the improper purpose of obstructing the

9 settlement. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commce'ns, 3 485 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)) ([C]ompelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the

4 public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such

5 ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of

G records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous

7 statements, or release trade secrets.”). 8 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to seal the unredacted

9 Holton Declaration and Settlement Agreement. Dkt. No. 168. The Court ORDERS

10 Plaintiffs to file redacted versions on the docket within 14 days of this order.

11 Dated this 29th day of April, 2026.

13 amal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re: Amazon Return Policy Litigation, (W.D. Wash. 2026).

In re: Amazon Return Policy Litigation (In re: Amazon Return Policy Litigation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related