ORDER

ROSLYN O. SILVER, Senior District Judge.

Pursuant to a settlement agreement, the parties request the Court vacate the Order resolving the cross-motions for summary judgment as well as the accompanying judgments. As correctly pointed out by the parties, "[a] decision of a federal district court judge is not binding precedent in either a different judicial district, the same judicial district, or even upon the same judge in a different case." Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 709 n.7 (2011) (quotation omitted). Thus, vacating the summary judgment order would seem to have very little effect; "[w]hether the court vacates the order or not, it remains in the public record, and has as much persuasive effect as any court or party wishes to accord it." Unigen Pharm., Inc. v. Walgreen Co., No. C07-471RAJ, 2009 WL 10677072, at *1 (W.D. Wash. July 8, 2009).

Despite the lack of effect, the balance of equities supports granting the parties' joint request. Am. Games, Inc. v. Trade Prod., Inc., 142 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting district court should apply "equitable balancing test" when determining whether to vacate prior order). Granting the request will prevent further proceedings. See Quest Integrity USA, LLC v. A.Hak Indus. Servs. US, LLC, No. 2:14-CV-01971-RAJ, 2019 WL 1572691, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 11, 2019) (stating court would vacate because doing so would "alleviates the need for further proceedings"). And, given that the summary judgment order is already publicly available and will remain so, there are no countervailing interests weighing against vacating the orders.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Joint Motion to Vacate (Doc. 130) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall VACATE the Order of September 10, 2018 (Doc. 111), the Judgment in a Civil Case (Doc. 112), and the Judgment on Taxation of Costs (Doc. 122). This case shall remain closed.