Opinion
C19-0290RSL
01-25-2023
BRUCE CORKER d/b/a RANCHO ALOHA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO SEAL
ROBERT S. LASNIK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs' “Motion for Leave to File Under Seal.” Dkt. # 565. Plaintiffs seek to seal excerpts of testimony and exhibits on the ground that defendants designated the documents as confidential during discovery (or because documents produced by non-parties are of the type that has been designated as confidential by defendants).
“There is a strong presumption of public access to the court's files,” and, absent a showing that the public's right of access is outweighed by the interests of the public and/or the parties in shielding the material from public view, a seal is not appropriate. LCR 5(g). A party's unilateral designation of a document as confidential under a protective order does not, in and of itself, justify a seal under LCR 5(g)(2). Only two defendants filed responses to the motion as required by LCR 5(g)(3) or otherwise attempted to show that legitimate private or public interests warrant a seal despite the public's right of access. Having reviewed their submissions and applying them to similar materials designated as confidential by other parties and nonparties, the Court finds that Dkt. #566 should remain under seal with the exception of Dkt. #566-4 (Exhibit C) and Dkt. #566-5 (Exhibit D). L&K has not asserted, much less shown, that these marketing materials and labels have been kept in confidence or that their disclosure would give its competitors an unfair advantage.
For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' request for a seal (Dkt. #565) is GRANTED in part. The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal Dkt. # 566-4 and #566-5.