- 1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 Paul W. Parker, Personal Representative of the 11 Estate of Curtis John Rookaird, 12 Case No. 2:14-cv-00176-RAJ Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 BNSF Railway Company, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to seal (Dkt. # 399) and 18 Defendant’s motion to strike (Dkt. # 477). 19 Plaintiff’s motion seeks to seal or strike Docket Nos. 393 and 393-1. Dkt. # 399. 20 Those docket entries contain an email from Curtis Rookaird’s wife, Kelly Rookaird. At 21 the time the email was filed, the Court and the parties were determining whether to take a 22 preservation deposition of Mr. Rookaird, who was terminally ill. Dkt. # 394. At issue 23 was Mr. Rookaird’s willingness to take that deposition given his declining health. Dkt. 24 # 396. Defendant represented to the Court that, according to an email from Ms. 25 Rookaird, Mr. Rookaird did not want to take that deposition. Id. at 8-9. The Court, 26 however, noted that it did not receive Ms. Rookaird’s email. Id. at 13. Defendant later 27 1 filed Ms. Rookaird’s email at Docket No. 393-1. 2 Plaintiff’s counsel moves to seal Ms. Rookaird’s email because it contains 3 “irrelevant, inaccurate, and libelous statements sent by [Mr. Rookaird]’s wife during an 4 emotional and stressful time in which her husband’s health was declining to the point of 5 requiring hospice care.” Dkt. # 399 at 7. In her email, Ms. Rookaird recalls her 6 interactions with Plaintiff’s counsel, calling him a “bully” and “immoral,” and describing 7 his communications with her as “nasty,” among other things. Dkt. # 393-1. 8 Unsurprisingly, the parties could not come to an agreement on whether Ms. 9 Rookaird’s email should be kept under seal. BNSF argues that the email should remain 10 public because “[a]ttorney ethics are an issue of public interest.” Dkt. # 404 at 3. 11 Plaintiff says that, should the email remain public, it would only serve to gratify private 12 spite. Dkt. # 399 at 2. 13 Because Ms. Rookaird’s email was not attached to a dispositive motion, the Court 14 applies a “good cause” standard. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 15 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). “A party asserting good cause bears the burden, for each particular 16 document it seeks to protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no 17 protective order is granted.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 18 1130 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, the Court finds good cause to seal Ms. Rookaird’s email. 19 The public’s interest in accessing Ms. Rookaird’s thoughts about Mr. Rookaird’s 20 willingness to attend a deposition is exceedingly small. Meanwhile, her ad hominem 21 attacks about Plaintiff’s counsel, if allowed to remain public, may be later used to gratify 22 private spite. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (explaining that sealing may be justified 23 when court records are used “to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, [or] 24 circulate libelous statements”). 25 Thus, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s motion to seal. 26 The Clerk shall seal Docket No. 393-1. Docket No. 393, on the other hand, which is 27 simply a declaration attaching Ms. Rookaird’s email, shall remain publicly available. 1 Turning to the Defendant’s motion to strike untimely and inadmissible exhibits, 2 the Court finds that the motion is moot. Dkt. # 477. Defendant’s motion seeks to strike 3 certain exhibits that Plaintiff filed after the close of trial. Defendant says that the 4 evidence, located at Docket Nos. 476, 476-1 to -3, is untimely. 5 Earlier this week, the Court entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 6 finding in favor of Defendant. Dkt. # 479. In entering that order, the Court did not rely 7 on Plaintiff’s late-filed evidence. Thus, the Court DENIES as moot Defendant’s motion 8 to strike. Dkt. # 477. 9 DATED this 29th day of March, 2022. 10 A 11 12 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Document Info
Docket Number: 2:14-cv-00176
Filed Date: 3/29/2022
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/4/2024