Karrani v. JetBlue Airways Corporation, No. 2:2018cv01510 - Document 76 (W.D. Wash. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER denying Plaintiff's 18 First Motion to Seal and directing that within 14 days of this Order, Plaintiff shall re-file the declaration exhibits attached to the Declaration of John P. Sheridan in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Compe l (Dkt. # 20 ), with redactions of passengers' names contained in the passenger complaint, Exhibit 7. Plaintiff's Second Motion to Seal (Dkt. # 45 ) is DENIED and the CLERK SHALL UNSEAL Dkt. # 48 no earlier than ten (10) days from the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Karrani v. JetBlue Airways Corporation Doc. 76 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ABDIKARIM KARRANI, Case No. C18-1510 RSM Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AND SECOND MOTIONS TO SEAL v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Abdikarim Karrani’s two Motions to Seal, filed on March 29, 2019 and May 24, 2019, respectively. Dkts. ## 18, 45. Both Motions relate to documents designated as “confidential” by Defendant JetBlue Airways Corp. (“JetBlue”) under the parties’ Protective Order, and therefore filed under seal by Plaintiff pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5(g). A full summary of the case is not necessary given this Court’s earlier orders on parties’ discovery disputes. See Dkts. #49, 50. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s first and second Motions to Seal. II. DISCUSSION “There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 5(g). However, for sealed discovery documents attached to non-dispositive motions, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AND SECOND MOTIONS TO SEAL PAGE - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the Ninth Circuit has found that this strong presumption is rebutted given that such documents 2 are often “unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Kamakana 3 v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Phillips v. General 4 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)) (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, 5 a “good cause” showing under Rule 26(c) may suffice to keep under seal documents attached to 6 non-dispositive motions. Id. Rule 26, which gives district courts flexibility in balancing and 7 protecting the interests of private parties, states that “good cause” is shown where forbidding 8 disclosure or discovery would “protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, 9 oppression, or undue burden or expense ….” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 10 The Court’s Local Rules explicitly instruct parties to present legal and evidentiary support 11 in a motion to seal. Normally that motion must include “a specific statement of the applicable 12 legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, with evidentiary support from 13 declarations where necessary.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 5(g)(3)(B). However: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Where parties have entered a litigation agreement or stipulated protective order (see LCR 26(c)(2)) governing the exchange in discovery of documents that a party deems confidential, a party wishing to file a confidential document it obtained from another party in discovery may file a motion to seal but need not satisfy subpart (3)(B) above. Instead, the party who designated the document confidential must satisfy subpart (3)(B) in its response to the motion to seal or in a stipulated motion. LCR 5(g)(3). In this case, the protective order stipulated and agreed to by the parties on February 15, 2019 explicitly states that “Local Civil Rule 5(g) sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal.” Dkt. #15 at 4. A. Plaintiff’s First Motion to Seal 23 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AND SECOND MOTIONS TO SEAL PAGE - 2 1 Plaintiff’s First Motion to Seal (Dkt. #18), concerns deposition testimony and a passenger 2 complaint email designated by JetBlue as “confidential” under the Protective Order (Dkt. #15). 3 Plaintiff relied on this material to support Plaintiff’s First Motion to Compel. See Dkt. #21, Exs. 4 1A, 2A, 7. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5(g), JetBlue’s confidential designations required 5 Plaintiff to file these documents under seal. Plaintiff contends that the records JetBlue designated 6 as “confidential” should not be sealed, and that Plaintiff should be allowed to file the unredacted 7 motion to compel, with the attached exhibits, without sealing. 8 In response to Plaintiff’s motion, JetBlue de-designated portions of the deposition 9 transcripts, Dkt. #21, Exs. 1A, 2A, and confirmed that the transcripts may be re-filed not under 10 seal, but with redactions of “uncontested confidential information” such as crew members’ 11 addresses. Dkt. #26 at 1. Plaintiff argues that the deposition excerpts provide no remaining 12 confidential material and should be produced in full without redactions. Dkt. #27 at 2. Neither 13 party argues that the deposition transcripts should remain sealed. Upon review of the transcripts, 14 the Court finds no mention of crew member addresses or any other “uncontested confidential 15 information” subject to the Protective Order. 16 With respect to the passenger complaint filed under seal, Dkt. #21, Ex. 7, JetBlue’s 17 Response only refers to the deposition transcripts—it makes no mention of the passenger 18 complaint. If JetBlue wanted the passenger complaint to remain under seal, it needed to show 19 good cause for keeping the document sealed. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 5(g)(3) (party 20 designating document confidential must set forth applicable legal standard and explain why less 21 restrictive alternative is not sufficient). JetBlue has failed to provide any justification for keeping 22 the passenger complaint sealed. 23 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AND SECOND MOTIONS TO SEAL PAGE - 3 1 The Court has reviewed the documents at issue and found that the deposition transcripts 2 contain no sensitive information requiring further redaction. However, the passenger complaint 3 contains the names of the complaining passengers—which were redacted elsewhere in the 4 document—and therefore requires further redaction pursuant to parties’ Protective Order before 5 re-filing. See Dkt. #21, Ex. 7 at 3. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal 6 (Dkt. #18), and ORDERS Plaintiff to re-file the declaration exhibits attached to the Declaration 7 of John P. Sheridan in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. #20), with redactions of 8 passengers’ names contained in the passenger complaint, Ex. 7. 9 B. Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Seal 10 Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Seal (Dkt. #45), concerns five incident reports that JetBlue 11 designated as “confidential” and were accordingly filed under seal by Plaintiff in support of 12 Plaintiff’s Reply to the Second Motion to Compel. The sealed reports pertain to JetBlue Flight 13 358: a flight in February 2016 during which an incident involving flight attendant Cindy 14 Pancerman resulted in removal of a black passenger, Fatima Wachuku. Dkt. #47, Rose Decl. at 15 1. These five additional incident reports provide information about Ms. Wachuku’s removal as 16 well as the removal of an unidentified black female passenger on the same flight. Of the five 17 disclosed reports, two concern only Ms. Wachuku, two concern only the unidentified woman, 18 and one concerns both passengers. Dkt. #47, Rose Decl. at 2. 19 JetBlue argues that the reports should be sealed on the basis that they are proprietary 20 JetBlue documents that contain sensitive information about the unidentified passenger, who was 21 not a complainant against Ms. Pancerman. Dkt. #61 at 3. Secondly, JetBlue argues that the 22 documents, on their face, demonstrate that removal of the other passenger did not involve Ms. 23 Pancerman and are therefore unrelated to this case. Id. (“Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 7 asks: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AND SECOND MOTIONS TO SEAL PAGE - 4 1 ‘Please identify every complaint against Cindy Pancerman in the last ten years.’”) (emphasis in 2 original). 3 After careful review of parties’ briefings and the incident reports at issue, the Court finds 4 that JetBlue failed to provide good cause to keep the documents sealed. As the party designating 5 the document confidential, JetBlue was required to set forth the applicable legal standard 6 pursuant to LCR 5(g)(3)(B) and explain why a less restrictive alternative was not sufficient. See 7 Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 5(g)(3). Given the redactions of the second passenger’s name and 8 identifying information, it is unclear to the Court how disclosure of a “sensitive and potentially 9 embarrassing event” warrants sealing when the passenger’s identifying information is redacted. 10 Additionally, while JetBlue contends that reports involving the second passenger are not 11 responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, lack of relevance is not sufficient to warrant sealing 12 of the incident reports—three of which do, in fact, involve Ms. Pancerman. See Dkt. #47, Rose 13 Decl. at 2. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Seal (Dkt. #45). CONCLUSION 14 15 16 Having reviewed the relevant briefing, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto, and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS: 17 1) Plaintiff’s First Motion to Seal (Dkt. #18) is DENIED. Within fourteen (14) days 18 from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall re-file the declaration exhibits attached to 19 the Declaration of John P. Sheridan in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. 20 #20), with redactions of passengers’ names contained in the passenger complaint, 21 Exhibit 7; 22 23 2) Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Seal (Dkt. #45) is DENIED and the CLERK SHALL UNSEAL Dkt. #48 no earlier than ten (10) days from the date of this Order. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AND SECOND MOTIONS TO SEAL PAGE - 5 1 2 3 4 5 DATED this 28th day of June 2019. A RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AND SECOND MOTIONS TO SEAL PAGE - 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.
