McAndie v. Sequim School District

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 HANNA J. McANDIE, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05227-JHC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 SEQUIM SCHOOL DISTRICT, ROBERT 11 CLARK, and his marital community, 12 Defendants. 13

14 On March 3, 2023, the Court issued under seal an order (1) granting in part and denying 15 in part SSD’s motion for summary judgment, and (2) granting in part, denying in part, and 16 denying without prejudice in part Clark’s motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. # 156. The 17 Court filed the order under seal in recognition of the fact that the order references confidential or 18 sensitive evidence that the parties submitted under seal, see Dkts. ## 94-1, 94-2, but that does not 19 necessarily mean that the cited portions of this evidence included in the order must remain 20 sealed. There is a “strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm 21 Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court wants to know whether the 22 sealed evidence referenced in the order is sensitive enough to warrant protection from public 23 disclosure. 24 1 Each party is DIRECTED to file a brief, within five (5) court days, identifying any 2 || portions of the summary judgment order, if any, that the party believes should be redacted in a 3 public version of the order. Each brief may be filed under seal and shall not exceed five (5) 4 ||pages. The brief must include specific argument about each proposed redaction. 5 Dated this 3rd day of March, 2023. ° Cok. 4. Chur 7 John H. Chun United States District Judge 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24