Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

T-MOBILE USA, INC. v. HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., C14-1351-RAJ. (2017)

Court: District Court, D. Washington Number: infdco20170313g44 Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 10, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 10, 2017
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. JONES , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Huawei Device USA Inc.'s Motions to Seal (Dkt. ## 364, 377, 388) and Plaintiff T-Mobile USA, Inc.'s Motions to Seal (Dkt. ## 349, 375). For the reasons that follow, the Court STRIKES the parties' motions. "Unnecessarily voluminous" is an apt description for many of the filings in this case, but nowhere does it apply with more force than the parties' motions to seal. By the Court's count, the parties
More

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Huawei Device USA Inc.'s Motions to Seal (Dkt. ## 364, 377, 388) and Plaintiff T-Mobile USA, Inc.'s Motions to Seal (Dkt. ## 349, 375). For the reasons that follow, the Court STRIKES the parties' motions.

"Unnecessarily voluminous" is an apt description for many of the filings in this case, but nowhere does it apply with more force than the parties' motions to seal. By the Court's count, the parties have filed a total of twenty-two motions to seal in this matter. See Dkt. ## 29, 33, 136, 163, 181, 190, 211, 219, 243, 255, 267, 276, 282, 295, 327, 336, 342, 349, 364, 375, 377, 388. Nearly all of these motions have drawn a response brief from the opposing party. Dkt. ## 36, 146, 186, 189, 227, 228, 287, 288, 304, 305, 306, 311, 359, 360, 362, 370, 387. Several have resulted in a reply brief. Dkt. ## 233, 290, 307, 309, 310.

The Court has encouraged the parties to collaborate. In December 2016, the Court ordered the parties to file a joint statement consolidating their positions on seven pending motions to seal. See Dkt. # 313. After receiving the joint submission, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer concerning their disagreements over which documents should remain under seal. Dkt. # 316. They did so and reached a consensus on certain disputed issues. Dkt. # 322.

To the Court's disappointment, the parties have since reverted to their previous ways. Rather than reach consensus in a joint motion, the parties continue to drag the Court through an inefficient, convoluted briefing process that serves no purpose other than to confuse, overwhelm, and distract the Court.

Accordingly, the Court STRIKES all pending motions to seal. Dkt. # 349, 364, 375, 377, 388. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, the parties are again ORDERED to meet and confer. This time, however, the Court will unseal all documents at issue in the pending motions unless the parties reach an agreement as to which documents at issue in the pending motions should remain under seal. Within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, the parties shall jointly file proof of this agreement, or the Court will unseal all affected documents. Going forward, any motion to seal that is not brought jointly by the parties will be summarily denied and the documents at issue will be unsealed. Any party that violates this Order will be subject to sanctions.

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