Wedi Corp. v. Wright et al, No. 2:2015cv00671 - Document 128 (W.D. Wash. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part, denying in part and deferring in part Hydro-Blok's 107 Sealed Motion for an order to show cause why Wedi and its attorneys should not be held in contempt for violating the Stipulated Protective Order; granting in part and denying in part Sound Product's 115 Motion to Confirm Final Arbitral Award and Enter Judgment Thereon; the arbitral award issued on June 23, 2017, docket no. 101 -3, is CONFIRMED and an appropriate partial judgment will be entered; and granting Wedi's 119 Motion to Seal. Wedis response, docket no. 120 , and the Declaration of Daniel J. Becka and all exhibits thereto, docket no. 121 , shall remain under seal. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (TH)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 3 4 5 HYDRO-BLOK USA LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, 6 v. 7 WEDI CORP., Defendant. 8 9 Plaintiff, v. BRIAN WRIGHT, et al., Defendants. 12 13 ORDER WEDI CORP., 10 11 C15-671 TSZ THIS MATTER comes before the Court on (i) a motion, docket no. 115, brought 14 by Brian Wright and Sound Product Sales L.L.C. (collectively, “Sound Product”), to 15 confirm the arbitral award issued on June 23, 2017, docket no. 101-3; (ii) a motion, 16 docket no. 107, brought by Brian Wright, Sound Product Sales L.L.C., Hydro-Blok USA, 17 LLC, and Hydroblok International Ltd. (collectively, “Hydro-Blok”), for an order to 18 show cause why wedi Corp. and its attorneys should not be held in contempt for violating 19 the Stipulated Protective Order, docket no. 41; and (iii) a motion, docket no. 119, filed by 20 wedi Corp. concerning whether its response to Hydro-Blok’s motion, as well as its 21 supporting declaration and exhibits, should remain under seal. Having reviewed all 22 papers filed in support of, and in opposition to, each motion, the Court enters the 23 following order. ORDER - 1 1 Discussion 2 A. Confirming the Arbitral Award 3 Pursuant to agreements between wedi Corp. (“wedi”) and Sound Product, docket 4 nos. 101-1 & 101-2, the parties were directed to arbitrate wedi’s breach of contract, 5 breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment claims against Sound 6 Product. See Order (docket no. 26); see also Am. Compl. at Counts I-IV (docket no. 17). 7 The parties also arbitrated wedi’s allegation that Sound Product violated Washington’s 8 Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which had been pleaded as a counterclaim in this matter. 9 See Am. Counterclaims at Count VII (docket no. 64). The arbitrator found against wedi 10 and in favor of Sound Product on all claims other than breach of contract; on the contract 11 claim, the arbitrator awarded to wedi only nominal damages of $1.00. See Award 12 (docket no. 101-3). The arbitrator denied wedi’s request for attorneys’ fees, concluding 13 that the “fair and just result is to leave the parties where they stand.” Id. (docket 14 no. 101-3 at 17). The arbitrator further indicated that Sound Product had waived its 15 ability to recover attorneys’ fees against wedi. Id. (docket no. 101-3 at 5). On Sound 16 Product’s motion, the Court struck this portion of the arbitral award. See Order (docket 17 no. 111). 18 Sound Product now seeks to confirm the arbitral award, as modified. In response, 19 wedi does not dispute the propriety of confirming the arbitral award pursuant to the 20 Federal Arbitration Act, see 9 U.S.C. § 9, but it takes issue with the form of Sound 21 Product’s proposed order, docket no. 115-1. The Court declines to adopt Sound 22 Product’s proposed form of order, but otherwise GRANTS the motion to confirm the 23 ORDER - 2 1 arbitral award. Seeing no just reason for delay, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the Court will 2 enter an appropriate partial judgment. 3 B. Violating the Stipulated Protective Order 4 Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court entered a protective order in this case 5 that tracks the district’s model order. See Stip. Prot. Order (docket no. 41); see also 6 Local Civil Rule 26(c)(2). The Stipulated Protective Order provides that a party 7 receiving confidential material from another party may use it “only for prosecuting, 8 defending, or attempting to settle this litigation.” Stip. Prot. Order at ¶ 4.1 (docket 9 no. 41). In addition, a party receiving confidential material must confer with the party 10 designating the material as confidential before filing, discussing, or referencing such 11 material in court filings. Id. at ¶ 4.3. Hydro-Blok alleges that wedi and its attorneys 12 violated these provisions of the Stipulated Protective Order by filing a complaint in the 13 Northern District of Illinois against Seattle Glass Block Window, Inc. (“Seattle Glass”), 14 another entity owned by Brian Wright, which contained or referenced confidential 15 material received by wedi in this matter. The complaint against Seattle Glass was filed 16 on September 1, 2017, see Ex. A to Anable Decl. (docket no. 108-1), and it remained 17 available for public view until October 2, 2017, when it was temporarily sealed on wedi’s 18 motion.1 See Notification of Docket Entry (N.D. Ill. Case No. 1:17-cv-6368, docket 19 no. 13). A motion is currently pending in the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss for 20 21 1 According to wedi’s counsel, the complaint was sealed on September 22, 2017, upon his telephonic request to the assigned judge’s courtroom deputy clerk. See Becka Decl. at ¶ 3 22 (docket no. 121). The docket does not, however, confirm that the complaint was sealed prior to 23 October 2, 2017. ORDER - 3 1 lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer the case 2 to this district. 3 In response to Hydro-Blok’s motion for an order to show cause why wedi and its 4 attorneys should not be held in contempt, wedi argues that the complaint against Seattle 5 Glass does not use or disclose material designated confidential by Hydro-Blok, but 6 instead relies on wedi’s own information, some of which Brian Wright, on behalf of 7 Seattle Glass, allegedly improperly disclosed to wedi’s competitors. The Court is not 8 persuaded by wedi’s analysis. In several paragraphs of the complaint against Seattle 9 Glass, the key factual assertions are based on confidential documents disclosed by 10 Hydro-Blok in this case. Compare wedi’s Am. Counterclaims at ¶¶ 69, 74, & 77 (docket 11 no. 52-1) with Compl. at ¶¶ 30, 42, 45, & 46, Ex. A to Anable Decl. (docket no. 108-1); 12 see also Minute Order at ¶ 4 (docket no. 63). Although the sales and other substantive 13 information contained in the Hydro-Blok material might have actually belonged to wedi, 14 the fact that Brian Wright forwarded such data to others was learned only from the 15 disclosures made in this matter pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order. Thus, wedi 16 and its counsel were precluded by the Stipulated Protective Order from using such 17 evidence to craft a pleading in a different proceeding. 18 The Stipulated Protective Order would not, however, have prevented wedi from 19 relying on confidential material disclosed in this matter to join Seattle Glass as a party in 20 this action, and the real issue here is not that wedi asserts claims against Seattle Glass, but 21 rather that it has done so in the Northern District of Illinois. Given that Brian Wright, a 22 resident of Washington, is already a party in this litigation, and that Seattle Glass is a 23 ORDER - 4 1 Washington corporation, see Ex. A to Anable Decl. (docket no. 108-1), wedi’s behavior 2 appears to be sheer forum shopping. The Court disapproves of such gamesmanship, but 3 also recognizes that, if wedi’s allegations have any truth to them, the Hydro-Blok entities 4 and Seattle Glass do not have entirely clean hands. 5 Although wedi has violated the Stipulated Protective Order, the Court is not 6 convinced that Hydro-Blok’s proposed remedy of forcing wedi’s attorneys to withdraw is 7 appropriate, and the Court declines to do so. The Court DEFERS ruling on whether wedi 8 and its lawyers were “substantially justified” in their position, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(3) 9 & 37(a)(5)(A)(ii), or whether Hydro-Blok should be awarded attorney’s fees and costs in 10 connection with its motion and/or with the litigation in the Northern District of Illinois, 11 until after the remaining claims and counterclaims in this matter are resolved. If the 12 pending action against Seattle Glass is transferred from the Northern District of Illinois to 13 this district, it shall be treated as related to this case, and the parties shall file the requisite 14 notice of related case. See Local Civil Rule 3(g). 15 C. Sealing Materials 16 Although, in connection with Hydro-Blok’s motion to show cause, wedi filed its 17 response, docket no. 120, and supporting declaration, docket no. 121, under seal, wedi 18 contends that, with a few exceptions, these documents should be available for public 19 view. See Reply at 1 & n.1 (docket no. 127) (agreeing that Exhibits 3 & 5-11 to the 20 supporting declaration should remain under seal). The Court is satisfied that all of the 21 responsive papers should remain under seal. 22 23 ORDER - 5 1 Conclusion 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS: 3 (1) Sound Product’s motion, docket no. 115, to confirm the arbitral award is 4 GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; the arbitral award issued on June 23, 2017, 5 docket no. 101-3, is CONFIRMED and an appropriate partial judgment will be entered; 6 (2) Hydro-Blok’s motion, docket no. 107, for an order to show cause why wedi 7 and its attorneys should not be held in contempt for violating the Stipulated Protective 8 Order, docket no. 41, is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and DEFERRED in part; 9 (3) The motion to seal, docket no. 119, filed by wedi, but supported by 10 Hydro-Blok, is GRANTED; wedi’s response, docket no. 120, and the Declaration of 11 Daniel J. Becka and all exhibits thereto, docket no. 121, shall remain under seal; and 12 (4) The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of 13 record. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 DATED this 19th day of December, 2017. 17 A 18 Thomas S. Zilly United States District Judge 16 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER - 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
