MS Amlin Marine NV v. Delta Marine Industries Inc

Opinion

1 2

3 4 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 MS AMLIN MARINE NV, SYNDICATE CASE NO. 2:23-cv-14 0457, SYNDICATE 1969, SYNDICATE 8 2791, SYNDICATE 5000, CONVEX ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS INSURANCE UK LTD, and TO SEAL AT DKT. NOS. 53 & 79 LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY 10 B1098M203407,

11 Plaintiffs, 12 v. MARINE TRAVELIFT INC, KENDRICK EQUIPMENT LTD, and

16 Defendants. 17 18 1. INTRODUCTION 19 Plaintiffs filed two motions to seal.1 Dkt. Nos. 53, 79. The Court has 20 considered the papers submitted in support of and opposition to the motions, the 21 1 “Plaintiffs” refers to MS Amlin Marine N.V. t/a Lead Yacht acting on behalf of MS 22 Amlin Insurance SE; Syndicate 0457; Syndicate 1969; Syndicate 2791; Syndicate 5000; Convex Insurance U.K. Ltd., and Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing 23 to Policy B1098M203407. 1 relevant parts of the record, and the governing law. Being fully advised, the Court 2 DEFERS ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal Exhibit 8. Dkt. No. 53. The Court

3 GRANTS, in part, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal Exhibits G, K, and L. Dkt. No. 79. 4 2. BACKGROUND 5 The Court entered a stipulated Protective Order on September 12, 2023. Dkt. 6 No. 38. The Stipulated Protective Order defines confidential materials as 7 “documents containing personal information about the parties’ employees or 8 customers as referenced in WDWA Local Rule 5.2, proprietary information/trade

9 secrets, or financial data and records of individuals and parties” Id. at 2. Plaintiffs 10 filed each of these instant motions to seal to provide Defendant Delta the 11 opportunity to maintain certain materials designated as confidential under seal. 12 Delta asks the Court to maintain some of these materials under seal. Dkt. No. 60. 13 3. DISCUSSION 14 3.1 Legal standard. 15 “There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” LCR 5(g). 16 Thus, “the court must conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public 17 and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Kamakana v. City 18 & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). “[T]o 19 minimize the amount of material filed under seal,” parties have a duty to meet and 20 confer before moving to seal. LCR 5(g)(3)(A). And even when the parties agree that 21 certain documents should be sealed, courts will not seal those documents unless 22 they meet the requisite standard. LCR 5(g)(3). 23 1 Under Local Civil Rule 5, motions to seal must contain “a specific statement 2 of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal,

3 including an explanation of” the following: 4 i. the legitimate private or public interests that warrant the relief sought; 5 ii. the injury that will result if the relief sought is not granted; and 6 iii. why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is no 7 sufficient.

8 LCR 5(g)(3)(B)(i)–(iii). To establish these factors, parties may need to submit 9 evidence. LCR 5(g)(3)(B). When litigants request to seal documents attached to 10 dispositive motions, as they do here, a higher burden applies; they “must meet the 11 high threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy.” Kamakana, 12 447 F.3d at 1179–80. 13 Local Civil Rule 5 clarifies who bears the burden on a motion to seal in cases 14 where a stipulated protective order governing the discovery of confidential 15 documents is in place. The rule states: 16 Where parties have entered a litigation agreement or stipulated protective order (see LCR 26(c)(2)) governing the exchange in discovery 17 of documents that a party deems confidential, a party wishing to file a confidential document it obtained from another party in discovery may 18 file a motion to seal but need not satisfy subpart (3)(B) above. Instead, the party who designated the document confidential must satisfy 19 subpart (3)(B) in its response to the motion to seal or in a stipulated motion. 20 LCR 5(g)(3)(B). Here, Plaintiffs moved to seal Delta’s confidential documents. Thus, 21 Delta must establish that sealing the documents is appropriate. 22 23 1 3.2 Exhibit 8. Plaintiffs’ first motion asks the court to seal Exhibit 8 to Katie Mattison’s 2 declaration that was filed contemporaneously with Plaintiffs’ Moton for Summary 3 Judgment. Dkt. No. 53 (Ex. 8 filed under temporary seal at Dkt. No. 57). Exhibit 8 4 contains plans for the TRITON—the pleasure yacht at issue here—including Delta’s 5 lift plan and Delta’s docking plan. Dkt. 57. The lift plan is pages 2–9 of Exhibit 8 6 and the docking plan is page 10. Id. Delta designated Exhibit 8 as “confidential” 7 under the parties’ stipulated protective order when it produced these documents in 8 discovery. 9 As the designating party, Delta must establish that sealing Exhibit 8 is 10 warranted. But it did not address the legal standard or the factual reasons for 11 keeping Exhibit 8 sealed in its briefing. See Dkt. No. 60; LCR 5(g)(3)(B). Thus, the 12 Court has insufficient information to determine whether Exhibit 8 should be sealed 13 and DEFERS ruling on the motion. 14 Delta is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE as to why the Court should not lift the 15 seal on Exhibit 8 within 14 DAYS of the date of this order. 16 17 3.3 Exhibit G. 18 Plaintiffs also ask the Court to seal Exhibit G to Patrick Hudson’s declaration 19 that was filed with Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Replies. Dkt. No. 79. Exhibit G is 20 a copy of Delta Marine’s Weight & Center of Gravity Spreadsheet, Bates Stamped 21 DMI 001368–DMI 001370, concerning the weight of the TRITON. Delta tagged 22 23 1 Exhibit G as confidential when it was produced during discovery. Delta is unwilling 2 to withdraw the confidential designation from Exhibit G.

3 Delta contends that these documents contain intellectual property that would 4 result in substantial harm and injury if released to the public. They contain 5 technical specifications for the TRITON. And Delta has a legitimate privacy interest 6 in keeping its confidential business information private and confidential. They also 7 assert that there is not another option besides sealing all 10 pages of the Exhibit. 8 Upon review, the Court agrees with Delta and finds that a compelling reason

9 exists to main Exhibit G under seal. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to seal 10 Exhibit G. 11 3.4 Exhibits K and L. 12 Plaintiffs sought to seal Exhibits K and L because these records were 13 designated as confidential previously by Delta, the producing party. Exhibit K to 14 the Hudson Declaration is the Arxcis Inspection Worksheets and Certificates, 2013 15 to 2021. Exhibit L is the Arxcis Inspection Certificate, July 29, 2014. Delta indicates 16 that Exhibit K and Exhibit L need not be filed under seal. Accordingly, the Court 17 DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to seal Exhibits K and L and directs the Clerk to unseal 18 them. 19 4. CONCLUSION 20 The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 21 • The Court DEFERS ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal Exhibit 8, Dkt. 22 No. 53. Delta must SHOW CAUSE no later than 14 DAYS from the 23 1 date of this Order as to why the Court should not unseal Exhibit 8, 2 Dkt. No. 57. Until then, Exhibit 8, Dkt. No. 57, will remain sealed.

3 • Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal Exhibits G, K, and L, Dkt. No. 79, is 4 GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: 5 o Dkt. No. 81, which is Exhibit G, will REMAIN SEALED. 6 o The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to UNSEAL Dkt. Nos. 82 and 83, 7 which are Exhibits K and L respectively. 8 Dated this 9th day of July, 2024.

9 A 10 Jamal N. Whitehead 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23