Wagafe v. Biden

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et al., 11 CASE NO. C17-94 RAJ Plaintiffs, 12 ORDER GRANTING v. MOTIONS TO SEAL 13 DONALD TRUMP, et al., 14 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motions to seal. Dkt. ## 311, 18 315. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motions. 19 “There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Western 20 District of Washington Local Civil Rule (“LCR”) 5(g). “Only in rare circumstances 21 should a party file a motion, opposition, or reply under seal.” LCR 5(g)(5). Normally the 22 moving party must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the 23 reasons for keeping a document under seal, with evidentiary support from declarations 24 where necessary.” LCR 5(g)(3)(B). 25 However, where parties have entered a stipulated protective order governing the 26 exchange in discovery of documents that a party deems confidential, “a party wishing to 27 file a confidential document it obtained from another party in discovery may file a motion 1 to seal but need not satisfy subpart (3)(B) above. Instead, the party who designated the 2 document confidential must satisfy subpart (3)(B) in its response to the motion to seal or 3 in a stipulated motion.” LCR 5(g)(3). A “good cause” showing under Rule 26(c) will 4 suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions. Kamakana v. City & 5 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). 6 For dispositive motions, the presumption may be overcome by demonstrating 7 “compelling reasons.” Id.; Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1135-36 8 (9th Cir. 2003). 9 Plaintiffs move to seal Exhibits 1-3 of the Hyatt Declaration (Dkt. # 314) and 10 Exhibits C-F of the Sepe Declaration (Dkt. # 318) because Defendants have designated 11 these documents as “Confidential” under the parties’ protective order. Dkt. # 311 at 2; 12 Dkt. # 315 at 2. Defendants argue that these documents contain sensitive but unclassified 13 information about how USCIS officers investigate and vet national security and that 14 disclosure of this information could cause nefarious individual to modify their behavior 15 and thereby avoid detection. Dkt. # 323 at 3; Dkt. # 324 at 3. The Court finds that 16 Defendants have established “good cause” for keeping this limited subset of documents 17 under seal. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion as to Exhibits 1-3 of the Hyatt 18 Declaration (Dkt. # 314) and Exhibits C-F of the Sepe Declaration (Dkt. # 318) 19 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motions to seal. Dkt. 20 ## 311, 315. 21 Dated this 4th day of February, 2020. 22 A 23

24 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 25 United States District Judge 26