Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, INC. v. AMAZON FULFILLMENT SERVICES, INC., C17-0814JLR. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. Washington Number: infdco20170719907 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jun. 19, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 19, 2017
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO SEAL AND DIRECTING BRIEFING JAMES L. ROBART , District Judge . Before the court are Plaintiff Central Freight Lines, Inc.'s motions to seal. (1st Mot. (Dkt. # 14); 2d Mot. (Dkt. # 20).) Defendant Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. does not oppose either motion. ( See 1st Mot. at 2-3; 2d Mot. at 2-3; Dkt.) The court has reviewed the motions and the proposed redactions and concludes that they overcome the strong presumption of public access to the court's files. See
More

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO SEAL AND DIRECTING BRIEFING

Before the court are Plaintiff Central Freight Lines, Inc.'s motions to seal. (1st Mot. (Dkt. # 14); 2d Mot. (Dkt. # 20).) Defendant Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. does not oppose either motion. (See 1st Mot. at 2-3; 2d Mot. at 2-3; Dkt.) The court has reviewed the motions and the proposed redactions and concludes that they overcome the strong presumption of public access to the court's files. See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006); In re Conagra Foods, Inc., No. CV 11-05379-MMM (AGRx), 2014 WL 12577132, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 11, 2014) ("A demonstration that public disclosure of internal financial information will cause competitive harm to a party's business constitutes a compelling reason that justifies sealing."); see also Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 5(g). Accordingly, the court GRANTS both motions (Dkt. ## 14, 20) and DIRECTS the Clerk to retain the seal on the related documents (Dkt. ## 15, 15-1, 15-2, 21, 21-1).

Because the court had not yet ruled on the motions to seal when it issued its order denying Central Freight's motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO"), the court filed that order preliminarily under seal. (See 5/26/17 Order (Dkt. # 41) at 1, 11-12.) Having granted the motions to seal, the court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer regarding which, if any, portions of the May 26, 2017, order they seek to have redacted. The parties must then submit one joint statement or, if they cannot agree on a joint statement, competing statements indicating the portions of the order they seek to have redacted and on what basis. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80. Any joint or competing statement must attach a proposed redacted order that incorporates the redactions requested in the corresponding statement. The parties must file any such statement by July 7, 2017. The court will consider any requests to redact and then file the order on the docket with any necessary redactions.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer