Filed: Jul. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 09, 2018
Summary: STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO SEAL PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT JAMES L. ROBART , District Judge . I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Johnny B. Delashaw, Jr. (Dr. Delashaw), Defendant Charles Cobbs (Dr. Cobbs), and Defendant Seattle Times Company (Seattle Times) jointly request the Court seal Dr. Delashaw's Amended Complaint (Dkt. #20). II. BACKGROUND Dr. Delashaw filed his Amended Complaint on June 25, 2018. Dr. Cobbs notified Dr. Delashaw on July 2 that two sentences in the Amended Complaint
Summary: STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO SEAL PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT JAMES L. ROBART , District Judge . I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Johnny B. Delashaw, Jr. (Dr. Delashaw), Defendant Charles Cobbs (Dr. Cobbs), and Defendant Seattle Times Company (Seattle Times) jointly request the Court seal Dr. Delashaw's Amended Complaint (Dkt. #20). II. BACKGROUND Dr. Delashaw filed his Amended Complaint on June 25, 2018. Dr. Cobbs notified Dr. Delashaw on July 2 that two sentences in the Amended Complaint r..
More
STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER TO SEAL PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT
JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Johnny B. Delashaw, Jr. (Dr. Delashaw), Defendant Charles Cobbs (Dr. Cobbs), and Defendant Seattle Times Company (Seattle Times) jointly request the Court seal Dr. Delashaw's Amended Complaint (Dkt. #20).
II. BACKGROUND
Dr. Delashaw filed his Amended Complaint on June 25, 2018. Dr. Cobbs notified Dr. Delashaw on July 2 that two sentences in the Amended Complaint reference and quote a document that had been inadvertently produced to Dr. Delashaw in a state regulatory proceeding, which Dr. Cobbs had timely clawed back on the basis of a work-product claim. The parties agree that this document was inadvertently produced, information from this document was inadvertently included in Dr. Delashaw's Amended Complaint, and that Dr. Cobbs did not waive his work-product claim regarding this document by inadvertently producing it. In response to Dr. Cobb's July 2 notification, Dr. Delashaw filed a praecipe on July 6 and attached a corrected Amended Complaint to take the place of the original Amended Complaint (Dkt. #25).
III. ARGUMENT
"[D]istrict courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases." Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S.Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016). FRCP 5.2(d) and LCR 5(g) govern the sealing of filings containing confidential or sensitive information. LCR 5(g)(3) requires a motion to seal a document to include:
(A) a certification that the party has met and conferred with all other parties in an attempt to reach agreement on the need to file the document under seal, to minimize the amount of material filed under seal, and to explore redaction and other alternatives to filing under seal; this certification must list the date, manner, and participants of the conference;
(B) a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an explanation of:
i. the legitimate private or public interests that warrant the relief sought;
ii. the injury that will result if the relief sought is not granted; and
iii. why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not sufficient
The parties certify that Tyler L. Farmer (counsel for Dr. Delashaw), Malaika M. Eaton and John Q. Somerville (counsel for Dr. Cobbs), and Jessica L. Goldman (counsel for the Seattle Times) met and conferred telephonically regarding this issue on July 3 and subsequently agreed the original Amended Complaint should be sealed to preserve the confidentiality of information subject to Dr. Cobb's work-product claim, that no other material needs to be filed under seal at this time, and that redaction and other alternative methods were unsuitable in the context of a pleading that had already been filed.
Dr. Delashaw's original Amended Complaint should be sealed because (i) doing so will protect Dr. Cobb's interest in preserving the confidentiality of information subject to his work-product claim; (ii) leaving the original Amended Complaint unsealed will undermine that interest; and (iii) alternative means of protecting that interest, such as redaction, cannot be readily applied to a document that has already been filed.
Accordingly, Dr. Delashaw, Dr. Cobbs, and the Seattle Times jointly request the Court seal Dr. Delashaw's original Amended Complaint (Dkt. #20) to preserve the confidentiality of information subject to Dr. Cobb's work-product claim. While the parties believe the Court has authority to seal documents that have already been filed, if the Court concludes otherwise, the parties ask the Court to strike Dr. Delashaw's original Amended Complaint from the docket. Whether Dr. Delashaw's original Amended Complaint is sealed or struck, the parties ask the Court to find that Dr. Delashaw's corrected Amended Complaint (Dkt. #25) is the operative complaint at this time. The Parties agree that no prejudice will be incurred by either side if this joint request is granted.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Dr. Delashaw, Dr. Cobbs, and the Seattle Times respectfully request that this Court seal Dr. Delashaw's original Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 20) and find that Dr. Delashaw's corrected Amended Complaint (Dkt. #25) is the operative complaint.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing Stipulated Motion, the Court orders the clerk to seal Dr. Delashaw's original Amended Complaint (Dkt. #20). Dr. Delashaw's corrected Amended Complaint (Dkt. #25) is Plaintiff's operative complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
