Mendy v. Larson

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 SANG W. MENDY, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01426-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 v. PROTECTIVE ORDER AND REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL 13 TRACY L. LARSON et al., BRIEFING 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Defendant American Security 17 Programs, Inc. (“ASP”) for a protective order, which it filed as a joint expedited motion pursuant 18 to Local Civil Rule 37. Dkt. No. 95. The Court appreciates the parties’ efforts to submit their 19 discovery dispute under Rule 37. Having carefully reviewed that submission, the Court DENIES 20 ASP’s motion because whether the Stock Purchase Agreement, Dkt. No. 97 at 3–160, is supported 21 by consideration is relevant to the parties’ dispute, see Dkt. No. 82 at 3 (noting that the Stock 22 Purchase Agreement in redacted form fails to show any consideration), and producing the purchase 23 price in unredacted form is proportional to the needs of the case. However, the parties must first 24 execute a confidentiality agreement as described below. 1 The Court ORDERS the following: 2 1. ASP’s motion for a protective order, Dkt. No. 95, is DENIED. 3 2. If the parties have not already done so, within seven days of the date of this Order 4 they must execute a confidentiality agreement protecting the redacted information

5 in the Stock Purchase Agreement. This agreement need not be submitted to the 6 Court. 7 3. Upon execution of the confidentiality agreement, ASP must submit to Plaintiff 8 Sang Mendy the Stock Purchase Agreement without redactions to the purchase 9 price.1 10 4. Within five business days of receipt of the unredacted Stock Purchase Agreement, 11 Mendy must file a supplemental brief of no more than 2,100 words addressing how 12 (if at all) the unredacted information affects his opposition to ASP’s motion for 13 summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 82. The supplemental brief may not assert new 14 arguments that could have been raised in Mendy’s opposition brief.

15 5. Within four business days thereafter, ASP may file an optional reply of no more 16 than 2,100 words. 17 Dated this 8th day of May, 2024. 18 A 19 Lauren King United States District Judge 20 21 1 ASP has filed two versions of the Stock Purchase Agreement under seal, see Dkt. Nos. 94, 97, without complying 22 with the requirements for filing a document under seal under Local Civil Rule 5(g). Because the standards for discoverability and sealing are different, the Rule 37 motion is insufficient to comply with Rule 5(g). If the Court does not receive a proper motion pursuant to Rule 5(g)(2)(B) by May 13, 2024, it will unseal docket entries 94 and 97. The 23 Court further notes that the fact that the redacted information will be protected by a confidentiality agreement does not entitle ASP to file it under seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 24 2016) (describing the standards for sealing).