NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800

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

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE

UNDER SEAL - 1

(CV06-0204JCC)

The Honorable John C. Coughenour

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JAMES S. GORDON, Jr., a married

individual, d/b/a

‘GORDONWORKS.COM'; OMNI

INNOVATIONS, LLC., a Washington

limited liability company,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VIRTUMUNDO, INC, a Delaware

corporation d/b/a

ADNOWLEDGEMAIL.COM;

ADKNOWLEDGE, INC., a Delaware

corporation, d/b/a

ADKNOWLEDGEMAIL.COM; SCOTT

LYNN, an individual; and JOHN DOES,

1-X,

Defendants.

NO. CV06-0204JCC

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE

UNDER SEAL

NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: 

February 2, 2007

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

Protective Order filed in the above-captioned action (Dkt. No. 37), Defendants submit

this motion to file their Reply in Support of Motion for an Undertaking (Dkt. No. 92, the

“Reply”), together with the Declaration of Derek A. Newman in Support of Defendants’

Motion for an Undertaking (Dkt. No. 93, the “Newman Decl.”) under seal. 

Local Rule 5(g)(1) requires a showing “that the public’s right of access is

outweighed by the interests... of the parties in protecting files, records, or other

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 91 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 1 of 2

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 91

Dockets.Justia.com
NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800

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

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE

UNDER SEAL - 2

(CV06-0204JCC)

documents from public review.” The Reply and Newman Decl. request this Court order

Plaintiffs to file an undertaking for the potential payment of attorneys’ fees and costs, and

are partially based on Plaintiff James Gordon’s (“Gordon”) testimony, which indicates the

frivolousness of Plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants’ arguments required them to refer to

Gordon’s testimony. However, Gordon claims his testimony is confidential. Filing the

Reply and Newman Decl. under seal will allow the Court to strike an effective balance

between Defendants’ interest in obtaining attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending

against a frivolous lawsuit, and any legitimate interest Gordon may have in preserving the

confidentiality of his testimony. Accordingly, good cause exists for filing the Reply and

Newman Decl. under seal.

In addition, Paragraph 13 of the Protective Order provides as follows: “All

materials containing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION that are submitted to the

Court... shall remain confidential and shall be accorded in camera treatment.” Defendants

do not believe the information in the Reply and Newman Decl. is confidential. However,

for Plaintiffs’ benefit they have marked those documents “CONFIDENTIAL

INFORMATION” and are moving to file them under seal, to ensure this Court reviews

them in camera pursuant to the Protective Order.

DATED this 12th day of January, 2007.

NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

By:

Derek A. Newman, WSBA No. 26967

Roger M. Townsend, WSBA No. 25525

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 91 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 2 of 2