Mallouk v. Amazon.com Inc

Hon. Ricardo S. Martinez

4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE SUZANNE MALLOUK, ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ PEREZ, and ARJUN DHAWAN, No. 2:23-cv-00852 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING JOINT v. STIPULATION AND ORDER 10 EXTENDING DEADLINES IN AMAZON.COM INC. and STARBUCKS SCHEDULING ORDER AND CORPORATION, DENYING MOTION TO FILE RESPONSE UNDER SEAL 12 Defendants.

Having reviewed the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Extend Deadlines, Dkt. #57, the Court finds good cause to extend the deadlines. The Court GRANTS a two-month extension of all dates in the previously issued scheduling order. The deadlines are reset as follows: 18 Close of Phase 1 Discovery August 12, 2024 19 Phase 1 Expert Disclosures August 12, 2024 Rebuttal Disclosures September 12, 2024 Deadline to Conduct Phase 1 Expert October 12, 2024 21 Depositions 22 Deadline to file Phase 1 Motions for November 22, 2024 Summary Judgment Deadline to file Oppositions to January 17, 2025 24 Motions for Phase 1 Summary Judgment Deadline to file Replies to Motions for February 14, 2025 26 Phase 1 Summary Judgment Start of Phase 2 Discovery Within 14 days of Court’s order on Phase 1 Summary Judgment 2 Motions The Court also notes Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown cause for venue to remain with this Court. However, the Court shall deny Plaintiffs’ “Unopposed Sealed Motion to File Under Seal Plaintiff’s Unredacted Response to Order to Show Cause,” Dkt. #60.

7 “There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Local Rule 5(g).

8 The Court’s Local Rules explicitly instruct the parties to present legal and evidentiary support in a motion to seal. Normally, that motion 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.” Local Rule 5(g)(3)(B). However: 13 Where parties have entered a litigation agreement or stipulated protective order (see LCR 26(c)(2)) governing the exchange in discovery of documents that a party 14 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 15 3(B) above. Instead, the party who designated the document confidential must satisfy subpart 3(B) in its response to the motion or in a stipulated motion.

17 Local Rule 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).

Plaintiffs move to file their response to this Court’s Order to Show Cause, Dkt. #58, under seal. Plaintiffs state that “Defendants contend that certain references in Plaintiffs’ Response (to this Court’s Order to Show Cause) are based on “confidential” or “extremely sensitive” materials that Defendants provided to the Plaintiffs.” Dkt. #60 at 1. “Without conceding the merits of Defendants’ designations,” Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to comply with the Court’s Local Rule 5(g)(3). Id. Defendant has not filed a brief in support of this Motion but does not oppose it. The only explanation for keeping this exhibit under seal is provided second-hand by Plaintiffs: “Plaintiffs’ Response references certain materials and information Defendants Amazon.com Inc. (“Amazon”) and Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”) contend are confidential, or extremely sensitive, under the parties’ protective order (ECF No. 56).” Id. “Here, Defendants contend that certain references in Plaintiffs’ Response . . . are based on ‘confidential’ or ‘extremely sensitive’ materials that Defendants provided to the Plaintiffs. Id. The Court has examined Plaintiffs’ unredacted Response, Dkts. #59 and #60. The parties might have discussed potential confidential or sensitive information in their meetings, but there appears to be no such information in Plaintiffs’ Response to this Court’s Order to Show Cause.

12 This is a public court, and the information and witnesses mentioned in Plaintiffs’ Response will, presumably, all be made public knowledge as this case proceeds in this Court. Simply stating that information is confidential or sensitive, even with a protective order, does not make it so. The parties have failed to present good cause to keep these exhibits under seal.

Accordingly, the Court notes that Plaintiffs have shown sufficient cause for this case to remain with this Court. However, the Court hereby FINDS and ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Motion, Dkt. #60, is DENIED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to immediately unseal Dkts. #59 and #60.

The parties Stipulated Motion to Extend Deadlines, Dkt. #57, is GRANTED.

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2024.

A RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE