UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Similar documents
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.

Case 3:06-cv VRW Document 346 Filed 02/20/2007 Page 1 of 9

Case 5:13-cv JLV Document 113 Filed 07/21/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1982

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT THE CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY, CHRYSLER GROUP LLC, N/K/A FCA US LLC,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. MC JFW(SKx)

Case 1:13-cv MSK-MJW Document 3 Filed 05/17/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 2:16-cv KJM-EFB Document 21 Filed 08/09/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:06-cv CDL Document 130 Filed 08/21/2009 Page 1 of 11

NOS , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNDER SEAL, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

Case 1:10-cv RMU Document 25 Filed 07/22/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. Plaintiff,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. Plaintiffs, Defendants.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:08cv230

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 2:16-cv CDJ Document 29 Filed 08/09/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. Case No. 8:08-CV-1465-T-33TBM ORDER

Case 1:13-cv ER-KNF Document Filed 11/19/14 Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Case 3:14-md WHO Document Filed 07/31/18 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs, Defendant.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 51 Filed: 05/25/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:235

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:12-cv GP Document 27 Filed 01/17/13 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Case No. 19-cv HSG 8

Case 5:11-cv OLG-JES-XR Document 952 Filed 01/08/14 Page 1 of 5

Case 1:18-cv CMA Document 47 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

2:12-cv NGE-MJH Doc # 99 Filed 12/03/13 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 4401 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

United States District Court

Case 1:14-cv ADB Document 395 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON DIVISION

Case 2:05-cv TJW Document 212 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 5

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:13-cv RJS Document 36 Filed 08/16/13 Page 1 of 10

AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER IN INSURANCE CASE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

Case 1:17-cv JAL Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2017 Page 1 of 11

United States Court of Appeals

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION. THOMAS C. and PAMELA McINTOSH

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER (Filed Under Seal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case: 2:13-cv MHW-TPK Doc #: 130 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 2883

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

Case 1:13-cv EGS Document 89 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

Case5:13-cv BLF Document82 Filed06/05/15 Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Before the Court is Twin City Fire Insurance Company s ( Twin City ) Motion for

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LEROY BOLDEN ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO

Case 7:16-cv O Document 85 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2792

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/13/ :15 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2015. Exhibit 1.

Case: 2:12-cv PCE-NMK Doc #: 89 Filed: 06/11/14 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 1858

Case4:09-cv CW Document69 Filed01/06/12 Page1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 6:13-cv RWS-KNM Document 152 Filed 03/08/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 4364

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-SCOLA/ROSENBAUM

Case 1:15-cv RM-KMT Document 68 Filed 06/25/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Presently before the court is Defendant s Motion to Dismiss

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR STAY PENDING SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 4:15-cv JAR Doc. #: 27 Filed: 08/19/16 Page: 1 of 6 PageID #: 80

Case 2:17-cv JAD-VCF Document 38 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Case 1:06-cv REB-MEH Document 39 Filed 07/10/2006 Page 1 of 6

Smith v. RJM Acquisitions Funding, LLC Doc. 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

Writ of Mandamus is Conditionally Granted; Opinion Filed January 14, In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

Case 2:13-cv Document 122 Filed in TXSD on 12/17/13 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:15-cv JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 338

Case 3:18-cv RJB Document 50 Filed 11/28/18 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

JOINT RULE 16(b)/26(f) REPORT

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case 5:17-cv JGB-KK Document 17 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:225

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv SCJ. versus

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. REBECCA FRIEDRICHS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

Case 1:18-cv RBK-JS Document 29 Filed 10/31/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 186

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. MEMORANDUM OPINION (June 14, 2016)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA BRYSON CITY DIVISION. CIVIL CASE NO.

Transcription:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 0 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION FOR RESTORATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT, INC, a Washington Non-Profit Corporation; and CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, INC., a Washington, D.C. Non-Profit Corporation v. Plaintiffs, COW PALACE, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company, et al., Defendants. NO: :-CV-0-TOR ORDER UNSEALING RECORDS BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant Cow Palace s request that certain documents remain sealed or be redacted. ECF No.. The Court previously entered a minute order requiring the parties to address why any particular sealed document should remain sealed after the Court rules on the pending summary 0 ORDER UNSEALING RECORDS ~

0 0 judgment motions. ECF No.. Plaintiffs maintain that all documents should be unsealed. ECF No.. The Court has reviewed the file and is fully informed. DISCUSSION To maintain the sealed status of records related to dispositive motions, a party must show that compelling reasons exist to maintain the secrecy of the records. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, F.d, (th Cir. 00). Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point. Id. at (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., F.d, (th Cir. 00)). [T]he strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related attachments. Id. at ( [R]esolution of a dispute on the merits... is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the public s understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events. ) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The compelling reasons standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective order. Id. (citation omitted). On the other hand, a good cause showing will suffice to seal documents produced in discovery. Id. at 0. [This] less exacting good cause standard applies to private materials unearthed during discovery, and to previously sealed discovery attached to a nondispositive motion. Oliner v. Kontrabecki, F.d ORDER UNSEALING RECORDS ~

0 0 0, 0 (th Cir. 0) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As the Ninth Circuit has explained, the public has less of a need for access to [these court records] because [they] are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action. Id. (quoting Kamakana, F.d at ). Here, Defendant Cow Palace seeks to keep its Dairy Nutrient Management Plan ( DNMP ) under seal. It contends the DNMP is the blueprint of the Dairy s operation, including processes that it has developed to increase efficiency and gain a competitive advantage. ECF No. at. The DNMP is central to the Court s consideration of the parties cross-motions for summary judgment as it serves as a guide to all aspects of the proper handling of the Dairy s manure. The DNMP is also integral to the public s understanding of the judicial process in this case. Cow Palace has not shown a compelling reason to keep the DNMP sealed, and this Court finds nothing in the DNMP that would inform a competitor in order to gain a competitive advantage. The recipe for the proper handling, storage, and agronomical application of manure is no secret known only by Cow Palace. Accordingly, Cow Palace s request is denied to the extent it seeks to keep the DNMP and other portions of the record citing to the information contained in the DNMP sealed. Cow Palace also seeks to keep its manure customer lists, sales records, and milk production records sealed. Id. at. Cow Palace both sells and gifts manure ORDER UNSEALING RECORDS ~

0 to third parties. The Court observes that this case does not concern who purchases manure or how much milk the Dairy produces. These matters can rightfully be characterized as unrelated to the litigation or only tangentially related at best. See Oliner, F.d at 0. Accordingly, only good cause need be shown to keep these otherwise private matters sealed. Id. Cow Palace has shown economic good cause to protect its customer lists, sales prices, and milk production records. However, there is no economic advantage or trade secret associated with the gifting of manure that deserves protection. Not even good cause has been shown to keep those records sealed. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED:. Plaintiffs request that the following records remain sealed or be redacted from the public record is GRANTED in part as to the following records or portions thereof: i. ECF No. 0- at 0-; ii. iii. ECF No. 0- at - (only portions of these records discussing milk production should be redacted); ECF No. - at (pages 0- of the deposition); and 0 iv. ECF No. - at -.. The Clerk of Court shall unseal all remaining pleadings and filings from ECF No. 0 to ECF No.. ORDER UNSEALING RECORDS ~

The District Court Executive is hereby directed to enter this Order and provide copies to counsel. DATED January, 0. THOMAS O. RICE United States District Judge 0 0 ORDER UNSEALING RECORDS ~