In the Matter of Application of Lufthansa Technick Ag, C17-1453-JCC. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20190123f87
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jan. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 22, 2019
Summary: ORDER JOHN C. COUGHENOUR , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner's motion to seal (Dkt. No. 71) excerpts of deposition testimony (Dkt. No. 72). "[T]here is a strong presumption of public access to [the Court's] files." W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 5(g)(3). The presumption of public access may be overcome if the Court finds a compelling reason to seal and articulates a factual basis for its decision. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th
Summary: ORDER JOHN C. COUGHENOUR , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner's motion to seal (Dkt. No. 71) excerpts of deposition testimony (Dkt. No. 72). "[T]here is a strong presumption of public access to [the Court's] files." W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 5(g)(3). The presumption of public access may be overcome if the Court finds a compelling reason to seal and articulates a factual basis for its decision. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th C..
More
ORDER
JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner's motion to seal (Dkt. No. 71) excerpts of deposition testimony (Dkt. No. 72).
"[T]here is a strong presumption of public access to [the Court's] files." W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 5(g)(3). The presumption of public access may be overcome if the Court finds a compelling reason to seal and articulates a factual basis for its decision. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006).
The Court previously entered the parties' stipulated protective order. (Dkt. No. 59.) Respondent Panasonic Avionics Corporation designated the deposition testimony at issue as "Attorneys' Eyes Only" pursuant to the protective order. (Dkt. Nos. 71.) Having reviewed the deposition testimony at issue, the Court agrees that it contains sensitive information that falls within the scope of the protective order entered by the Court. (Dkt. Nos. 59, 72.) Thus, a compelling reason to seal exists that overcomes the presumption of public access to the deposition testimony at issue.
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's motion to seal (Dkt. No. 71) is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to maintain Docket Number 72 under seal.
Source: Leagle
