1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Douglas E. McKinley, Jr. THE HON. JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

PO Box 202

Richland WA, 99352

(509) 628-0809

iJustice Law, P.C.

Robert J. Siegel

1325 Fourth Ave., Suite 940

Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 304-5400

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JAMES S. GORDON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VIRTUMUNDO, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. CV06-0204 JCC

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL

CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND

REPLACE WITH REDACTED

VERSIONS

[NOTE ON MOTIN CALENDAR FOR

HEARING: JUNE 29, 2007]

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 15, 2007, this Court entered an order (1) denying plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal the

Declaration of Derek Newman (Dkt. No. 120); (2) denying Defendants’ Motion to Seal their

Reply filed in support of their Motion for Bond (Dkt No. 91); and (3) denying Defendants’

Motion to Seal their Motion to Compel Further Testimony of James Gordon Regarding Prior

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL CERTAIN

DOCUMENTS AND REPLACE WITH REDACTED

VERSIONS- 1

Case No. CV06-0204 JCC

Seattle-3370863.2 0036491-00001

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 123 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 1 of 7

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 123

Dockets.Justia.com
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Settlements (Dkt. No. 86). See Dkt. No. 121 (Order). As a result, the following documents were

either unsealed or ordered to remain unsealed pursuant to the Court’s order:

1. Defendant’s Motion To Compel Further Testimony of James Gordon Re Prior

Settlements (Dkt. No. 87); 

2. Declaration of Derek A. Newman in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. No.

88);

3. Reply in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Undertaking (Dkt. No. 92); 

4. Declaration of Derek A. Newman re Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motion for

Undertaking (Dkt. No. 93); and

5. Declaration of Derek Newman (Dkt. No. 101);

In denying these motions to seal, the Court noted that “Local Rule 5(g)(1) requires more

than a ‘confidential’ designation and an unspecific sweeping request to seal an entire brief and

all of its exhibits.” See Dkt. No. 121, p. 22. Plaintiffs understand that they requested the sealing

of material in excess of the confidential portions within the documents. However, at the time,

plaintiffs believed that the only way to redact confidential information from already filed

documents was to file a motion to seal the entire document because the ECF system does not

allow for the replacement of filed documents.1 Plaintiffs now understand that they may request

the documents to be sealed and have redacted versions of those documents in question refiled on

the ECF system, thereby narrowly protecting any confidential information from public disclosure

where warranted.

Pursuant to Local Rule 5(g) and Paragraphs 13 and 15 of this Court’s October 26, 2006

Protective Order filed in the above-captioned action (Dkt. No. 37) (hereinafter the “Protective

Order”), plaintiffs file this motion to seal and replace certain documents in the public record with

the redacted versions of those documents. The motion affects only eleven pages of the 484 page

1

 The ECF Helpdesk stated that the only way to seal or redact portions of a filed

document on the ECF system was to file a motion to seal the document in its entirety. 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL CERTAIN

DOCUMENTS AND REPLACE WITH REDACTED

VERSIONS- 2

Case No. CV06-0204 JCC

Seattle-3370863.2 0036491-00001

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 123 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

deposition of James Gordon, Jr. which was put into the public record as a result of this Court’s

rulings. Good cause exists to redact minor portions of these 11 pages of the public record that

reference and identify a third party, who was not involved in this action, whose relationship and

agreement with plaintiffs are irrelevant and unrelated to any issue in this case, and whose identity

was inadvertently disclosed in ten pages of the voluminous documents submitted by defendants. 

II. EXHIBITS AT ISSUE

Plaintiffs seek to seal and replace the following documents in the public record:

1. Exhibit A to the Declaration of Derek A. Newman in Support of Defendants’ Motion to

Compel (Dkt. No. 88); 

2. Exhibit A to the Declaration of Derek A. Newman re Reply in Support of Defendants’

Motion for Undertaking (Dkt. No. 93); and

3. Exhibit A to the Declaration of Derek Newman in Support of Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 101).2

Hereinafter, these documents shall be referred to as the “Exhibits to Newman’s Declarations.” 

Each of these exhibits contain excerpts from the Deposition Transcript of James S.

Gordon (“Gordon Dep. Transcript”). In the deposition transcript, Mr. Gordon disclosed the

name of a non-party with whom plaintiffs entered into a confidential settlement agreement in an

unrelated dispute. Gordon disclosed this information with the understanding that it was to be

protected from public disclosure under the Protective Order. However, the defendants

inadvertently disclosed this confidential information in the Exhibits to Newman’s Declarations.

Plaintiffs now seek only to redact from these documents the name and identifying information of

the third party to the confidential settlement agreement. Proposed redacted versions of the

2

 In the ECF system, Defendants filed the exhibit to Derek Newman’s declarations

separately for all of these declarations except for Dkt. No. 101, where the declaration and exhibit

were filed as one document. Plaintiffs are not requesting that the content of Derek Newman’s

declarations be altered in any way. Plaintiffs’ request is limited to sealing the exhibits to his

declarations and replacing them with the attached redacted versions. 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL CERTAIN

DOCUMENTS AND REPLACE WITH REDACTED

VERSIONS- 3

Case No. CV06-0204 JCC

Seattle-3370863.2 0036491-00001

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 123 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Exhibits to Newman’s Declarations are attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C.3

III. ARGUMENT

The information that plaintiffs wish to seal and replace all come from the Gordon Dep.

Transcript, and is information that the deponent provided subject to the Protective Order entered

in this case. Paragraph 15 of the Protective Order provides that the “inadvertent or unintentional

disclosure of confidential information shall not be construed to be a waiver, in whole or in part,

of [the supplying or obtaining party’s] claims of confidentiality.”4 During Gordon’s deposition,

counsel for both parties agreed to have pages 39 through 75 of the Gordon Dep. Transcript,

which included information relating to the confidential settlement agreement between Plaintiffs

and a third party, “marked as confidential pursuant to the Protective Order.” See Dkt. No. 101,

Ex. A (Transcript of the Deposition of James Gordon, Jr., Plaintiff), 38:8-9; see also id. at 36:10-

37:14. These pages were already redacted from one of the submitted exhibits pursuant to

counsel’s agreement. See Dkt. No. 101, Ex. A (Transcript of the Deposition of James Gordon,

Jr., Plaintiff), 39-75. However, defendants should have redacted all references to the third party

prior to filing the Exhibits to Newman’s Declarations. The Protective Order allows plaintiffs to

now request that these inadvertent disclosures be sealed and/or redacted.

CR 5(g) sets forth a uniform procedure for sealing court records. See CR 5(g)(1).

Records may be sealed when there is “a compelling showing that the public’s right of access is

outweighed by the interests of the public and the parties in protecting files, records, or

3

 Pursuant to the Protective Order, Plaintiff has redacted the name of the third party to the

confidential settlement agreement (or specifically identifying information) from the following

pages of the following documents:

1. Exhibit A (Dkt. No. 88) – Pages 35, 36, 41, 44, 45.

2. Exhibit B (Dkt. No. 93) – Page 45.

3. Exhibit C (Dkt. No. 101) – Pages 38, 80, 82, and 83.

4

 By its terms, the Protective Order remains in full force and effect even after the entry of

the final judgment in this case. See Dkt. No. 37, ¶ 17.

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL CERTAIN

DOCUMENTS AND REPLACE WITH REDACTED

VERSIONS- 4

Case No. CV06-0204 JCC

Seattle-3370863.2 0036491-00001

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 123 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

documents from public review.” See id. However, the public’s right of access does not apply to

documents that were filed under seal pursuant to a valid protective order because the Court has

already determined that “good cause” exists to protect this information from public disclosure.

See Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)

(“When a court grants a protective order for information produced during discovery, it already

has determined that ‘good cause’ exists to protect this information from being disclosed to the

public by balancing the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.”). As here,

federal courts have generally granted protective orders to protect confidential settlement

agreements. Id. at 1212. 

 Good cause exists to seal the Exhibits to Newman’s Declarations. The Exhibits to

Newman’s Declarations contain excerpts from the Gordon Dep. Transcript that disclose

information that is protected by a confidential settlement agreement entered into between

plaintiffs and a third party in an unrelated matter. It is also protected by the Protective Order

entered in this case. Pursuant to that Protective Order, this information should be sealed/redacted

to protect the intent and expectations of the parties to that settlement to keep it confidential. Id.

at 1212. 

The Declarations of Derek A. Newman filed in support of Defendants’ Motion to Compel

(Dkt. No. 88) and Defendants’ Motion for Undertaking (Dkt. No. 93) were filed under seal

pursuant to the Protective Order. See Dkt. Nos. 86, 91. While the Declaration of Derek A.

Newman in support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 101) was not filed

under seal, it contained the same deposition transcript under which Gordon disclosed the identity

of the third party assuming it would be protected under the Protective Order. See Dkt. No. 101,

Ex. A (Transcript of the Deposition of James Gordon, Jr., Plaintiff), 38:8-9 (parties agreed to

mark certain testimony relating to the confidential settlement agreement between plaintiffs and a

third party, “as confidential pursuant to the protective order”); see also id. at 36:10-37:14. Under

the Protective Order “[a]ll materials containing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION that are

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL CERTAIN

DOCUMENTS AND REPLACE WITH REDACTED

VERSIONS- 5

Case No. CV06-0204 JCC

Seattle-3370863.2 0036491-00001

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 123 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

submitted to the Court . . . shall remain confidential and shall be accorded in camera treatment.”

Dkt. No. 37, ¶ 13. Because this information was disclosed only pursuant to the Protective Order,

there is a presumption that good cause exists to protect this information from public disclosure.

See Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1213. 

Moreover, redacting minor portions of Gordon’s Dep. Transcript, that are wholly

irrelevant to the underlying cause of action and were not relied upon by the Court in rendering its

final judgment in this matter, is unlikely to harm the public’s “interest in understanding the

judicial process.” See Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1213. The information that the plaintiffs now wish to

seal/redact, is information relating to a separate and independent settlement agreement with a

third party in an unrelated action. Not only are the terms underlying the confidential settlement

agreement with a third party irrelevant, the identity of the third party to the independent

settlement agreement is completely unrelated to the underlying cause of action. Indeed, the

motions and reply, for which these declarations are filed in support, make no reference to the

identity of the third party to the confidential settlement agreement.5 And, this Court ruled on

defendants’ motion for summary judgment without reliance on the identity of the third party and

without ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Testimony of James Gordon Re Prior

Settlements (Dkt. No. 86), wherein defendants sought to obtain additional information relating to

confidential settlement agreements that plaintiffs entered into with other third parties. Therefore,

the public does not need access to the identity of the third party to understand the Court’s ruling.

See id. Additionally, since plaintiffs only ask that the name and identifying information of the

third party be redacted from the Exhibits to Newman’s Declaration, while keeping all remaining

information intact, whatever minimal harm that would result to the public is likely eliminated.

IV. CONCLUSION

5

 Plaintiffs do not request that the Court seal or replace Defendant’s Motion To Compel

Further Testimony of James Gordon Re Prior Settlements (Dkt. No. 87), or Defendants’ Reply in

Support of Defendant’s Motion for Undertaking (Dkt. No. 92), which this Court ordered

unsealed.

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL CERTAIN

DOCUMENTS AND REPLACE WITH REDACTED

VERSIONS- 6

Case No. CV06-0204 JCC

Seattle-3370863.2 0036491-00001

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 123 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

This action is now closed. The information plaintiffs seek to seal/redact are minimal and

had no bearing the Court’s decision or any issue in this action. Good cause exists to grant

plaintiffs’ motion, and any public interest in accessing this particular information is probably

minimal. Plaintiffs only disclosed the confidential information pursuant to the Protective Order.

Allowing this confidential information to remain public will unnecessarily expose plaintiffs to

potential third-party liability for breach of the confidential settlement agreement. For all the

foregoing reasons, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant its Motion to Seal Certain

Documents and Replace with Redacted Versions. 

DATED: June 14, 2007.

I.JUSTICE LAW, P.C.

By___/s/ Robert J. Siegel

Robert J. Siegel, WSBA No. 17312

I.Justice Law PC

1325 4th Avenue, Ste 940

Seattle, WA 98101-2509

bob@ijusticelaw.com

Certificate of Service

I, hereby, certify that on June 14, 2007, I filed this document with this Court via approved

electronic filing, and served the following:

Attorneys for Defendants: Newman & Newman, Derek Newman

/s/ Robert J. Siegel________

Robert J. Siegel

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL CERTAIN

DOCUMENTS AND REPLACE WITH REDACTED

VERSIONS- 7

Case No. CV06-0204 JCC

Seattle-3370863.2 0036491-00001

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 123 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 7 of 7