Meghinasso v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC

Opinion

1 The Honorable Richard A. Jones

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10

11 JESSICA MEGHINASSO, Case No. 3:17-cv-05930-RAJ 12 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING THE 13 v. PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO SEAL 14 MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, and DAIMLER AG, 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Jessica Meghinasso’s Motions to 18 Seal (Dkt. ## 98, 104, 123, 133, 143, 156, 163, 169, 189) and Defendants Daimler AG 19 and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC’s Motions to Seal (Dkt. ## 92, 117, 138, 149, 182). For 20 the reasons stated below, the Court STRIKES the parties’ motions. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff Jessica Meghinasso (“Plaintiff or “Meghinasso”) filed a product liability 23 action against Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and its parent company, Daimler 24 AG (collectively “Defendants”), alleging that she was injured when the headrest of her 25 Mercedes-Benz CLS 500 spontaneously deployed while she was sitting in the front 26 passenger seat. Dkt. # 1 at 1-1. 27 1 The parties have stipulated to a protective order. Dkt. # 28. Under that order, 2 they may designate certain documents as “CONFIDENTIAL” if those documents 3 contain “Defendants’ specifications, designs, engineering, testing, customer 4 information, costs or pricing, data compilations requested in discovery, material subject 5 to a government agency’s confidentiality procedures, non-public business records, or 6 discussions of the foregoing, personal data controlled by applicable data protection or 7 privacy regulations, and plaintiff’s medical records.” Id. at 2. The parties have done 8 just that and have now attached many confidential documents to various motions 9 pending before the Court. 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public 12 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City 13 & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 14 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when a court considers 15 a sealing request, “a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Id. at 16 1178 (internal quotation marks omitted). 17 Under Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court 18 documents for the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research, 19 development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). As the Supreme 20 Court has recognized, sealing may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being 21 used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive 22 standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. The party seeking to seal a judicial record, however, 23 must show that “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh 24 the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 25 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (internal citations omitted). “Broad allegations of harm, 26 unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 27 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 1 Additionally, in the Western District of Washington, parties moving to seal 2 documents must comply with the procedures established by Civil Local Rule 5(g). Under 3 that rule, the party who designates a document confidential must provide a “specific 4 statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under 5 seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interest that warrant 6 the relief sought; (ii) the injury that will result if the relief sought is not granted; and 7 (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not sufficient.” W.D. Wash. 8 Local Rules LCR 5(g)(3)(B). And where the parties have entered a litigation agreement 9 or stipulated protective order governing the exchange of documents in discovery, a party 10 wishing to file a confidential document it obtained from another party in discovery may 11 file a motion to seal but need not satisfy subpart (3)(B). Instead, the party who designated 12 the document confidential must satisfy subpart (3)(B) in its response to the motion to seal 13 or in a stipulated motion. Id. 14 The number of sealing motions here is overwhelming. The argument offered in 15 support is underwhelming. In many instances, though not all, the parties have resorted to 16 blanket, conclusory assertions or simple reference to the Protective Order. See, e.g., Dkt. 17 # 98 at 1-2 (“This motion is brought pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered 18 on April 18, 2019 between Defendants and Plaintiff.”). This approach does not overcome 19 the weighty presumption of public access to court filings, nor does it comply with the 20 local rules. W.D. Wash. Local Rules LCR 5(g)(3)(B) (“Evidentiary support from 21 declarations must be provided where necessary.”). This Court cannot allow documents 22 to remain under seal unless the parties better articulate their reasons for doing so. Apple 23 Inc. v. Phystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). And the Court will not sift 24 through the motions to determine which ones were made in earnest and which were not. 25 Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the parties’ Motions to Seal. Dkt. ## 92, 98, 26 104, 117, 123, 133, 138, 143, 149, 156, 163, 169, 182, 189. 27 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 The Court will not accept motions to seal that fail to comply with the Local Rules 3 and offer only boilerplate reasons to seal documents from the public domain. The Parties 4 are hereby ORDERED to meet and confer and file a joint statement concisely 5 consolidating their positions on any materials for sealing by September 1, 2021. 6 The joint statement, as discussed with the parties on the August 18, 2021 7 teleconference, must include (i) specific examples of harm from the designating party that 8 would result from allowing the submitted materials, or portions thereof, into the public 9 domain and (ii) articulated reasons as to why alternatives to sealing would be insufficient. 10 The joint statement must include a chart of the parties’ positions in the form below. 11 ECF Detailed Designating Specific Harm Reasons why alternatives to 12 No. Document Party to Business sealing, such as redactions, are 13 Description Interests insufficient

14 15

16 The parties must jointly submit to the Court a digital copy of the proposed 17 materials for sealing. The documents in the flash drive must appear in the order that they 18 appear in the chart. Where the designating party is proposing that only portions of a 19 document be sealed, the redacted version shall immediately precede the document for 20 sealing. 21 The Court may later instruct the parties to jointly submit a physical courtesy copy 22 of the proposed materials for sealing in a tabbed three-ring binder. The instructions for 23 the digital copy shall apply all the same to this physical copy: The documents in the 24 binder must be in the order that they appear in the chart. Where the designating party is 25 proposing that only portions of a document be sealed, the redacted version shall 26 immediately precede the document for sealing in the tabbed binder. 27 1 Should the parties engage in a needless and protracted effort to seal materials 2 without regard for court rules, the Court will impose sanctions on the offending party. 3 4 For the reasons stated herein, the Court STRIKES the parties’ Motions to Seal. 5 Dkt. ## 92, 98, 104, 117, 123, 133, 138, 143, 149, 156, 163, 169, 182, 189. 6 7 DATED this 18th day of August, 2021. 8 A 9 10 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27