Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters v. Spee West Construction Company
2:23-cv-00061
| W.D. Wash. | May 3, 2023Background
- Spee West Construction moved to seal two declarations: a "Health Declaration of Terry R. Marston" and a "Declaration of John Berner, M.D.," filed in support of its response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause and a motion for an extension of time.
- The Petitioner, Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters, does not oppose the sealing motion.
- The Court had previously struck Spee West’s cross-motion and response to Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and ordered Spee West to show cause why it should not be sanctioned.
- Spee West certified it met-and-conferred per LCR 5(g) and submitted the specific statement required by the rule.
- The Court concluded the sealed documents are only tangentially related to the merits, applied the "good cause" standard, and found Spee West’s privacy interest in personal health information and impracticability of redaction justified sealing.
- The Court granted the motion and ordered Docket Nos. 21 and 22 to remain under seal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable sealing standard (compelling reasons v. good cause) | Did not oppose sealing | Documents are tangential to merits; good cause applies | Court applied good-cause standard |
| Compliance with LCR 5(g) meet-and-confer and specific statement requirement | No challenge | Parties conferred; motion includes required specific statement | Court found LCR 5(g) requirements satisfied |
| Whether privacy justifies sealing health declarations | No opposition | Counsel’s personal health/medical information implicates privacy; redaction impracticable | Court found privacy interest and granted sealing as narrowly tailored |
Key Cases Cited
- Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (presumption of public access to judicial records)
- Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (presumption of access can be overcome by sufficiently compelling reasons)
- Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (distinguishes when to apply compelling-reasons vs. good-cause standard)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978) (recognition of public right to inspect judicial records)