Wagafe v. Biden

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et al., No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Plaintiffs, ORDER v.

13 DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., 15 Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION Before the Court are two motions: (1) Defendants’ Motion to Redact Portions of the May 28, 2020 Hearing Transcript, Dkt. # 375, and (2) Defendants’ Motion to Seal the Motion to Redact Portions of the May 28, 2020 Hearing Transcript, Dkt. # 374.

“There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule (“LCR”) 5(g). “Only in rare circumstances should a party file a motion, opposition, or reply under seal.” LCR 5(g)(5). Generally, the moving party must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, with evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” LCR 5(g)(3)(B). However, where parties have entered a stipulated protective order governing the exchange in discovery of documents that a party deems confidential, “a party wishing to file a confidential document it obtained from another party in discovery may file a motion to seal but need not satisfy subpart (3)(B) above. Instead, the party who designated the document confidential must satisfy subpart (3)(B) in its response to the motion to seal or in a stipulated motion.” LCR 5(g)(3). A “good cause” showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted).

9 Here, Defendants request redactions to restrict public disclosure of information protected by this Court’s Protective Orders, Dkt. ## 183 and 192. Dkt. # 391. Plaintiffs argue that such redactions are unnecessary because the requested redactions refer to information that has already been made public. See Dkt. # 387 at 1. The Court disagrees and finds that Defendants have demonstrated good cause that such redactions are necessary to comply with the Court’s Protective Orders.

15 The Court thereby GRANTS the limited redactions requested by Defendants.

16 Dkt. # 375. For the same reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to seal, Dkt.

17 # 374.

18 DATED this 20th day of October, 2020.

A 22 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge