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

27

28

ORDER REGARDING

MOTIONS TO SEAL - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

PETER TILTON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

THE MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-0098RSL

ORDER REGARDING 

MOTIONS TO SEAL

This matter comes before the Court on numerous motions by the parties to seal various

documents in this case. As a result of the motions, a substantial portion of the docket is now

sealed, which is inconsistent with the public’s right of access. In considering the motions, the

Court takes into account the fact that much of the “confidential” information has been testified

about in open court during the course of the trial, and therefore is no longer truly private.

A. Motions in Limine and Related Documents

Regarding defendants’ motion to file their motions in limine and supporting documents

under seal (Dkt. #152), plaintiff’s motion to file his responses under seal (Dkt. #186), and

defendants’ motion to file their replies in support of those motions under seal (Dkt. #212), the

Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART all three motions. 

The motion to exclude expert testimony from Dr. Wolf (Dkt. #161), the response (Dkt.

Case 2:06-cv-00098-RSL Document 268 Filed 12/14/07 Page 1 of 4
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

27

28

ORDER REGARDING

MOTIONS TO SEAL - 2

#188), the reply (Dkt. #214), and the response to the motion concerning Brian DesRoches (Dkt.

#190) contain only brief summaries of Mr. Tilton’s medical information, all of which was

testified about in open court. In contrast, the Declaration of Camden Hall, (Dkt. #202), includes,

among other documents, the detailed report of Dr. Gerald Rosen, which contains detailed

information about his in-depth psychiatric evaluation of plaintiff, which is private. That

document may remain under seal.

The motion to exclude information about Google searches (Dkt. #162) does not appear to

contain any private or sensitive information. The motion to exclude evidence regarding The

McGraw-Hill Companies’ financial and corporate information (Dkt. #163), the response (Dkt.

#195), and the reply (Dkt. #217) do not actually contain any commercially sensitive or

proprietary information. Similarly, the motion to exclude testimony regarding the effect of the

article on plaintiff’s family (Dkt. #164), the response (Dkt. #198), and the reply (Dkt. #218) do

not divulge personal or sensitive information about Mr. Tilton or his family members. 

Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence regarding plaintiff’s Microsoft’s employment (Dkt.

#165), the response (Dkt. #200), and the reply (Dkt. #219) do not contain commercially

sensitive or proprietary information, or trade secrets. Although the motion includes the amount

of Microsoft’s severance payment to plaintiff, he testified about that amount during the trial. 

In contrast, the motion to exclude Ms. Conlin’s personal information (Dkt. #160), the

exhibits to counsel’s declaration in support of the motions in limine (Dkt. #167), and the reply

(Dkt. #213) contain private information about Ms. Conlin, including medical information, that

was not relevant or testified about in the trial. In addition, the Declaration of Camden Hall (Dkt.

#197) includes Ms. Conlin’s personnel file, which contains private information. The public’s

interest in the information about Ms. Conlin is minimal, and that motion and two declarations of

counsel may remain under seal. Plaintiff’s response to that motion (Dkt. #187), however, does

not contain any private information and will be unsealed. 

The reply in support of the motion to exclude expert testimony from Larry Johnson (Dkt.

Case 2:06-cv-00098-RSL Document 268 Filed 12/14/07 Page 2 of 4
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

27

28

ORDER REGARDING

MOTIONS TO SEAL - 3

#215) was apparently filed under seal in error, because defendants have not provided any

argument about why it should remain under seal and there appears to be no reason to do so. The

reply in support of the motion to exclude expert testimony from Brian DesRoches (Dkt. #216)

should not be sealed for the same reasons. 

B. Motion to Dismiss and Related Documents

The Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to file their third motion to dismiss under seal

(Dkt. #173). The motion (Dkt. #174) and supporting exhibits (Dkt. #175) may remain under

seal. The documents contain private and highly emotional communications between plaintiff

and his family members, and the public’s interest in reviewing those documents is minimal. For

the same reason, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to file its reply under seal (Dkt. #199). 

The memorandum (Dkt. #203) and the supporting declaration (Dkt. #205) may remain under

seal.

Plaintiff’s motion to seal his documents filed in response to the motion (Dkt. #183) is

DENIED. Although the memorandum (Dkt. #182) briefly notes plaintiff’s troubled mental state

and the opinion that he was psychotic for a period of time, those matters were testified about in

open court. Similarly, Dr. Wolf’s declaration (Dkt. #185) contains his opinion of plaintiff’s

former mental state, about which he testified in open court. Furthermore, Dr. Wolf’s declaration

contains primarily legal rather than medical opinions. Mr. Tilton’s declaration (Dkt. #184)

similarly contains legal arguments and information about which he testified during trial. 

C. Motion to File Discovery Documents Under Seal

Plaintiff seeks to file under seal his motion for authorization to show documents

designated as “confidential” during discovery to Brian DesRoches and to his attorney. The

motion to seal (Dkt. #230) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The notes

attached as an exhibit to that motion include private information about others who are not parties

to this action; therefore, docket #231 will remain under seal. However, plaintiff’s reply (Dkt.

#247) and corrected reply (Dkt. #248) do not contain private or sensitive information and will be

Case 2:06-cv-00098-RSL Document 268 Filed 12/14/07 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

ORDER REGARDING

MOTIONS TO SEAL - 4

unsealed.

Defendants’ motion to file deposition designations under seal (Dkt. #238) is GRANTED

IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The deposition of Dr. Furlong (Dkt. #239), which contains

plaintiff’s private medical information beyond what was testified about during trial, may remain

under seal. The deposition of Elizabeth Weiner (Dkt. #240) contains information about

defendant’s personnel evaluation process, code of ethics, and the fact that the company recently

underwent a reduction in force, none of which is proprietary business information. The

deposition of Stephen Shepard (Dkt. #242) contains very general information about the

magazine’s subscribers and circulation, defendant’s code of ethics and revisions to the same, and

the magazine’s general process for considering story ideas, none of which appears to be

proprietary business information. There appears to be no reason to seal Ms. Weiner’s and Mr.

Shepard’s deposition transcripts. Mr. Tilton testified about the information contained in his

deposition transcript (Dkt. #243), so there appears to be no reason to continue to seal that

transcript. 

Based on the foregoing, the Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal the following

documents on or shortly after January 11, 2008 unless the parties show cause before that day

why the Court should not unseal them: Dkt. ## 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 182, 184, 185, 187,

188, 190, 195, 198, 200, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 240, 242, 243, 247 and 248.

 

DATED this 14th day of December, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00098-RSL Document 268 Filed 12/14/07 Page 4 of 4