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 ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

CHRISTENSEN SHIPYARDS, LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE

CO., and NAVIGATORS INSURANCE CO.,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C06-0641-JCC

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the following motions to seal: Intervenors’ Motion to File

under Seal their Motion to Intervene and for Protective Order (Dkt. No. 54); Intervenors’ Motion to File

under Seal the Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. No. 70); Intervenors’ Motion to File under

Seal their Reply to Defendants’ Oppositions (Dkt. No. 78); Plaintiff’s Motion to File under Seal its

Second Replies to Defendants’ Second Oppositions to Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. No.

89). Having carefully considered the relevant submissions and determined that oral argument is not

necessary, the Court hereby rules as follows:

I. ANALYSIS

Under the Local Rules, the Court may order the sealing of any records if the moving party rebuts

the “strong presumption of public access to the court’s files and records.” See Local Rule CR 5(g)(1).

Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC Document 99 Filed 02/16/07 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 ORDER – 2

The presumption “may be overcome only on 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 documents from

public review.” Id. The Court will address each motion to seal separately.

A. Intervenors’ Motion to File Under Seal Their Motion to Intervene and for Protective Order 

and All Supporting Documents

Intervenors seek to protect from public view information designated as “highly confidential

business and personal information.” (Mot. 1-2.)

Although Intervenors allege that it was necessary for them to discuss confidential information and

private facts in their motion to intervene and for protective order, the Court was unable, with one

exception, to identify such information. The exception is the amount the parties in the Underlying

Litigation settled for and is referenced in the Subpoena served by Defendant St. Paul Fire on J. Douglas

Baldridge, counsel for Intervenors. (Baldridge Decl. Ex. C (Dkt. No. 58).)

By its own terms, the settlement agreement in the Underlying Litigation is confidential. (Mot. to

Intervene 4.) Intervenors and Plaintiff’s interest in having their confidentiality agreements enforced, and

the Court’s policy of promoting the resolution of disputes through settlement outweigh the public’s right

to access information regarding the settlement amount in the Underlying Litigation. However, because

this piece of information is disclosed only once, sealing the entire motion to intervene and all the

supporting documents is unnecessary. Instead, Intervenors are instructed to refile the Baldridge

Declaration with the settlement amount redacted. The previous submitted document will remain sealed.

The motion to seal is otherwise DENIED. 

B. Intervenors’ Motion to File Under Seal the Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time 

Intervenors argue for leave to file the motion for extension of time under seal “because of the

highly confidential information that is contained in Intervenors’ Motion [to Intervene and for Protective

Order] and because all related pleadings have been filed under Seal.”(Mot. 2.) The Court found no such

confidential information in the relevant submissions. The motion to seal is accordingly DENIED.

Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC Document 99 Filed 02/16/07 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 ORDER – 3

C. Intervenors’ Motion to File Under Seal their Reply to Defendants’ Oppositions to Their

Motion to Intervene and for Protective Order and All Supporting Documents

The motion to seal and the reply both contain references to Intervenors’ Motion to Intervene and

for Protective Order and the allegation that Intervenors had to provide some confidential information and

some private facts in support of that motion. (Mot. 2; Reply 3.) Similarly, Intervenors’ Motion to File

Redacted Contract, filed in the Underlying Litigation, discusses the need to redact information regarding

sensitive contract information. (Reply Ex. A.) However, nowhere was such information provided in the

Reply and the supporting documents, and the references by themselves do not contain the type of

sensitive information in need of sealing. The motion to seal is accordingly DENIED.

D. Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal Its Second Replies to Defendants’ Second Oppositions to

Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and All Supporting Documents

Plaintiff requests leave to file under seal its Second Replies to Defendant Navigator’s Second

Opposition (Dkt. No. 83) and to Defendant St. Paul’s Second Opposition (Dkt. No. 84), and the

following supporting documents: Declaration of A. Richard Dykstra (Dkt. No. 85); Declaration of

Michael Wampold (Dkt. No. 86); Declaration of Philip G. Marshall (Dkt. No. 87); Declaration of

Heather L. Carr (Dkt. No. 88). With the exception of the Second Reply to Defendant Navigator’s Second

Opposition and the Dykstra Declaration, these documents contain sensitive information regarding the

mediation proceedings (Second Reply to St. Paul’s Opp’n 1-3; Marshall Decl. 2; Carr Decl. Ex. 1) and

the settlement amount in the Underlying Litigation (Second Reply to St. Paul’s Opp’n 1-3; Wampold

Decl. 2; Marshall Decl. 2).

The settlement agreement in the Underlying Litigation is confidential. The mediation proceedings

are also confidential. See S.D. Fla. L.R. 16.2.G.2. By protecting the confidentiality of the settlement

amount and Plaintiff’s attorney’s mediation notes, the court promotes the public’s trust in mediation as an

effective means to solve disputes through alternative dispute resolution procedures. This policy

outweighs the public’s right to access the information regarding the mediation and the settlement amount

in the Underlying Litigation.

Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC Document 99 Filed 02/16/07 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 ORDER – 4

Except Plaintiff’s Second Reply to Defendant Navigator’s Second Opposition and the Declaration

of A. Richard Dykstra, the documents will be therefore sealed.

II. CONCLUSION

The various motions to seal are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:

1. Intervenors are ORDERED to refile the Baldridge Declaration with the settlement amount

in the Underlying Litigation redacted from the copy of the Subpoena served by Defendant

St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. on J. Douglas Baldridge. The Declaration of J.

Douglas Baldridge (Dkt. No. 58) shall remain sealed.

2. Intervenors’ Motion to File under Seal its Motion to Intervene and for Protective Order

(Dkt. No. 53), Intervenors’ Motion to Intervene and for Protective Order (Dkt. No. 57),

Defendant Navigators Insurance Co.’s Opposition to Intervenors’ Motion to Intervene

and for Protective Order (Dkt. No. 68), and Declaration of Noah Jarrett (Dkt. No. 69)

shall be UNSEALED.

2. Intervenors’ Stipulated Motion for Extension of Time and the proposed order (Dkt. No.

71) shall be UNSEALED.

3. Intervenors’ Reply to Defendants’ Oppositions to their Motion to Intervene and for

Protective Order and the supporting materials (Dkt. No. 79) shall be UNSEALED. 

4. Plaintiff’s Second Reply to Defendant St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co.’s Second

Opposition (Dkt. No. 84), Declaration of Michael Wampold (Dkt. No. 86), Declaration of

Philip G. Marshall (Dkt. No. 87), and Declaration of Heather L. Carr (Dkt. No. 88) shall

be SEALED.

SO ORDERED this 16th day of February, 2007.

AJohn C. Coughenour

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00641-JCC Document 99 Filed 02/16/07 Page 4 of 4