Advanced Hair Restoration LLC v. Bosley Inc
2:23-cv-01031
W.D. Wash.Jun 30, 2025Background
- Advanced Hair Restoration LLC moved to seal portions of its answer to Hair Club for Men, Ltd.'s counterclaim and two related exhibits.
- The documents sought to be sealed include confidential settlement agreements with third parties and lines in the answer that describe those settlements.
- A stipulated protective order between the parties was previously entered, defining confidential and "Attorney’s Eyes Only" materials, including business-sensitive information.
- The parties met and conferred on the sealing request, and the motion was unopposed.
- The court considered the strong presumption of public access to court records but weighed it against specific compelling reasons advanced by the plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to seal confidential settlement info | Disclosure risks business harm and violates confidentiality | Not opposed | Motion to seal is granted |
| Whether redacting portions of pleadings is justified | Redactions concern sensitive info protected by order | Not opposed | Redaction of answer/exhibits allowed |
| Applicability of the compelling reasons standard | Settlement terms and business info meet this standard | Not opposed | Compelling reasons to seal are found |
| Compliance with local sealing rules | Motion satisfies rule requirements for sealing | Not opposed | Court finds motion meets local requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (establishing presumption of public access to judicial records)
- Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (compelling reasons required to overcome presumption of public access)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (court records may be sealed to prevent improper use such as disclosure of trade secrets)