Wild Fish Conservancy v. Cooke Aquaculture Pacific, LLC

W.D. Washington

Wild Fish Conservancy v. Cooke Aquaculture Pacific, LLC

DecidedOctober 1, 2019

Docket2:17-cv-01708

StatusUnknown

This text of Wild Fish Conservancy v. Cooke Aquaculture Pacific, LLC (Wild Fish Conservancy v. Cooke Aquaculture Pacific, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wild Fish Conservancy v. Cooke Aquaculture Pacific, LLC, (W.D. Wash. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 WILD FISH CONSERVANCY, CASE NO. C17-1708-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 COOKE AQUACULTURE PACIFIC LLC, 13 Defendant. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to seal (Dkt. No.80) 16 an exhibit filed in support of Plaintiff’s second motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 17 81). Having thoroughly considered the filings and the relevant record, the Court finds oral 18 argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons explained herein. 19 “[T]here is a strong presumption of public access to [the Court’s] files.” W.D. Wash. 20 Local Civ. R. 5(g)(3). The presumption of public access may be overcome if the Court finds a 21 compelling reason to seal and articulates a factual basis for its decision. Kamakana v. City & Cty. 22 of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). 23 The Court previously entered the parties’ stipulated protective order, which limits the 24 disclosure of the parties’ confidential information. (See Dkt. No. 22.) Defendant designated the 25 exhibit at issue as “confidential” pursuant to the protective order, as it contains Defendant’s 26 sensitive business information. (See Dkt. No. 80.) Having reviewed the exhibit, the Court agrees 1 that it contains confidential information that falls within the scope of the protective order. (See 2 Dkt. No. 22.) Thus, a compelling reason to seal exists that overcomes the presumption of public 3 access to the exhibit. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 4 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to seal (Dkt. No. 80) is GRANTED. The 5 Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain Docket Number 81 under seal until further order of the Court. 6 DATED this 1st day of October 2019. A 7 8 9 John C. Coughenour 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 WILD FISH CONSERVANCY, CASE NO. C17-1708-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 COOKE AQUACULTURE PACIFIC LLC, 13 Defendant. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to seal (Dkt. No.80) 16 an exhibit filed in support of Plaintiff’s second motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 17 81). Having thoroughly considered the filings and the relevant record, the Court finds oral 18 argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons explained herein. 19 “[T]here is a strong presumption of public access to [the Court’s] files.” W.D. Wash. 20 Local Civ. R. 5(g)(3). The presumption of public access may be overcome if the Court finds a 21 compelling reason to seal and articulates a factual basis for its decision. Kamakana v. City & Cty. 22 of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). 23 The Court previously entered the parties’ stipulated protective order, which limits the 24 disclosure of the parties’ confidential information. (See Dkt. No. 22.) Defendant designated the 25 exhibit at issue as “confidential” pursuant to the protective order, as it contains Defendant’s 26 sensitive business information. (See Dkt. No. 80.) Having reviewed the exhibit, the Court agrees 1 that it contains confidential information that falls within the scope of the protective order. (See 2 Dkt. No. 22.) Thus, a compelling reason to seal exists that overcomes the presumption of public 3 access to the exhibit. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 4 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to seal (Dkt. No. 80) is GRANTED. The 5 Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain Docket Number 81 under seal until further order of the Court. 6 DATED this 1st day of October 2019. A 7 8 9 John C. Coughenour 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wild Fish Conservancy v. Cooke Aquaculture Pacific, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wild-fish-conservancy-v-cooke-aquaculture-pacific-llc-wawd-2019.