ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, Chief District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Maria del Carmen Martinez-Patterson's Motion to Seal, filed on July 18, 2019, and Defendant AT&T Services Inc. (AT&T)'s Motion to Seal, filed on July 29, 2019. Dkts. ##20, 27. Both Motions relate to documents designated as "confidential" by AT&T under the parties' Protective Order and therefore filed under seal pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5(g). A full summary of the case is not necessary.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Seal (Dkt. #20) and GRANTS AT&T's Motion to Seal (Dkt. #27).

II. DISCUSSION

"There is a strong presumption of public access to the court's files." Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 5(g). However, for sealed discovery documents attached to non-dispositive motions, the Ninth Circuit has found that this strong presumption is rebutted given that such documents are often "unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action." Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)) (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, a "good cause" showing under Rule 26(c) may suffice to keep under seal documents attached to non-dispositive motions. Id. Rule 26, which gives district courts flexibility in balancing and protecting the interests of private parties, states that "good cause" is shown where forbidding disclosure or discovery would "protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

The Court's Local Rules explicitly instruct parties to present legal and evidentiary support in a motion to seal. Normally that motion 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." Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 5(g)(3)(B). However:

LCR 5(g)(3). In this case, the protective order stipulated and agreed to by the parties on February 28, 2019 explicitly states that "Local Civil Rule 5(g) sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal." Dkt. #19 at 4.

A. Plaintiff's Motion to Seal

Plaintiff's Motion to Seal (Dkt. #20) concerns an organizational chart, employee performance rankings, and an internal message exchange between AT&T employees designated by AT&T as "confidential" under the Protective Order. Plaintiff relied on this material in support of her Motion to Compel. Dkt. #20 at 2. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5(g), AT&T's confidential designations required Plaintiff to file these documents under seal. Plaintiff contends that the records AT&T designated as "confidential" should not be sealed but claims that AT&T never responded to Plaintiff's request to remove the confidential designation. Id.

As the party designating the document confidential, AT&T was required to set forth the applicable legal standard pursuant to LCR 5(g)(3)(B) and explain why a less restrictive alternative was not sufficient. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 5(g)(3). However, AT&T has not filed a response to Plaintiff's Motion. Given the redactions on the organizational chart and the option to redact any identifying information in the performance reviews, the Court finds that re-filing the documents with redactions would sufficiently protect any confidential material.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Seal (Dkt. #20) and ORDERS Plaintiff to re-file the exhibits (Dkt. #23) with redactions of identifying information in the performance reviews, Ex. M, and any identifying information or otherwise sensitive material in the internal message exchange, Ex. R.

B. Defendant's Motion to Seal

AT&T's Motion to Seal (Dkt. #27) concerns information on AT&T's corporate policies and record retention practices. It also contains a longer excerpt of the internal message exchange filed under seal by Plaintiff. See Dkt. #23, Ex. R. AT&T relied on this material in support of its opposition to Plaintiff's motion to compel (Dkt. #24).

AT&T argues that the reports should be sealed on the basis that they contain proprietary information that outweighs the general public right to access. Dkt. #27 at 2 (describing risk of competitive harm). Plaintiff does not oppose AT&T's motion. The Court finds that AT&T has sufficiently shown good cause to keep these documents under seal.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS AT&T's Motion to Seal (Dkt. #27).

CONCLUSION

Having reviewed the relevant briefing, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto, and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS: