The Upper Deck Company v. Miller

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 22, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01936
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 THE UPPER DECK COMPANY, CASE NO. C23-1936-KKE 8

Plaintiff(s), ORDER STRIKING MOTIONS TO SEAL 9

v. 10

RYAN MILLER, et al., 11

Defendant(s). 12

13 Pending before the Court are six motions to seal. Dkt. Nos. 107, 112, 114, 121, 147, 156. 14 Because the Court concludes that the parties have not complied with the requirements of the Local 15 Rules, as detailed below, the Court will strike the motions. 16 “There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Local Rules W.D. 17 Wash. LCR 5(g); see also Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 18 2003). “A party must explore all alternatives to filing a document under seal.” LCR 5(g)(1). And 19 parties must meet and confer to discuss those alternatives. LCR 5(g). “‘Meet and [confer]’ means 20 a good faith conference in person or by telephone to resolve the matter in dispute without the 21 court’s involvement.” LCR 1(c)(6). Where a party seeks to file a document marked as confidential 22 during discovery, the parties “must determine whether the designating party will withdraw the 23 confidential designation or will agree to redact the document so that sealing is unnecessary.” LCR 24 5(g)(1)(A). In the event sealing is unavoidable, parties must certify that they have met and 1 conferred “in an attempt to reach agreement on the need to file the document under seal, to 2 minimize the amount of material filed under seal, and to explore redaction and other alternatives 3 to filing under seal.” LCR 5(g)(3).

4 Though the parties certified that they met and conferred, the filings are nevertheless replete 5 with indicators that the purpose of those conferences—to discuss withdrawal of confidential 6 designations, redactions, and all alternatives to sealing—was not fulfilled. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 135 7 (“Upon further reflection, Upper Deck is willing to withdraw its confidentiality designations”); 8 Dkt. No. 147 (“Given the short notice, Defendants are currently standing on their designations but 9 may adjust.”). Court filings are not the appropriate forum through which to conduct a meaningful 10 conferral. Rather, the local rules appropriately task the parties with identifying actual disputes 11 over sealing in the first instance. Here, deciphering the parties’ evolving positions across six 12 disparate motions inappropriately shifts that burden to the Court.

13 Accordingly, the Court STRIKES the parties’ motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 107, 112, 114, 14 121, 147, 156) and ORDERS the parties to meet and confer, and to file a Joint Status Report by 15 August 29, 2025, apprising the Court with specificity of what portions of the record should remain 16 under seal and whether any sealing disputes remain. If possible, the parties should identify the 17 exhibits at issue in a chart format, clearly indicating where the parties have reached agreement and 18 the basis for any outstanding disputes. All remaining briefing deadlines associated with the 19 outstanding motions (Dkt. Nos. 147, 156) are VACATED. 20 Dated this 22nd day of August, 2025. 21 22 A 23 Kymberly K. Evanson 24 United States District Judge