Wagafe v. Biden

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et al., CASE NO. C17-00094 RAJ Plaintiffs, v. MOTION TO SEAL DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to seal. Dkt. # 329. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion. “There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule (“LCR”) 5(g). “Only in rare circumstances should a party file a motion, opposition, or reply under seal.” LCR 5(g)(5). Normally the moving party must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, with evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” LCR 5(g)(3)(B). However, where parties have entered a stipulated protective order governing the exchange in discovery of documents that a party deems confidential, “a party wishing to file a confidential document it obtained from another party in discovery may file a motion to seal but need not satisfy subpart (3)(B) above. Instead, the party who designated the document confidential must satisfy subpart (3)(B) in its response to the motion to seal or in a stipulated motion.” LCR 5(g)(3). A “good cause” showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non- dispositive motions. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). Plaintiffs move to keep under seal the declaration of Heath Hyatt (“Hyatt Declaration”) and the accompanying exhibit (“Exhibit A”), submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. See Dkt. # 330; Dkt. # 330, Ex. A. Exhibit A to the Hyatt Declaration includes documents produced to Plaintiffs under an Attorneys-Eyes-Only Order (see Dkt. # 274) and the Hyatt Declaration includes information from those documents. Dkt. # 329 at 1. Defendants argue that these documents contain personal identifying information from the Named Plaintiffs’ A-Files and sensitive but unclassified information about the investigative techniques used by USCIS to vet applicants and security risks. Dkt. # 338 at 2-3. Because the documents are attached to a non- dispositive motion and Defendants have established “good cause” for keeping this limited subset of documents under seal, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to seal. Dkt. # 329. Dated this 12th day of May, 2020. A

The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge