Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-md-02143/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-md-02143-151/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

This document relates to:

ALL ACTIONS 

Case No. 10-md-02143-RS (JCS)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 1785

On February 10, 2016, the Direct Action Plaintiffs (“DAPs”) moved to file under seal 

certain excerpts of deposition testimony submitted in connection with a pending discovery dispute. 

See Mot. (dkt. 1785). The only stated reason for sealing was that the testimony concerned

material that Defendant TSSTK designated as confidential pursuant to the protective order in this 

case. See id.; Tuck Decl. (dkt. 1785-1). On February 12, 2016, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 

79-5(e)(1), TSSTK filed a declaration in support of the DAPs’ Motion identifying large portions 

of the deposition transcripts as subject to sealing. See generally McShane Decl. (dkt. 1798) at 2.

TSSTK asserts that most of its proposed redactions “contain confidential and commercially 

sensitive information, including: (i) strategies for procurement events, (ii) TSSTK’s internal 

volume and supply considerations, (iii) TSSTK’s market share by year, (iv) internal TSSTK 

operations, and (v) customer procurement and distribution information,” with virtually no attempt 

to link specific reasons for sealing to specific portions of testimony. See id. at 2. Moreover, based 

on a review of the proposed redactions, it is not obvious that most of the testimony that TSSTK

seeks to seal actually relates to such considerations (except, perhaps, the broad category of 

“internal TSSTK operations”), nor is it clear what harm, if any, would result from disclosure. 

Most of the testimony concerns conduct that took place years ago. One witness testified that 

TSSTK no longer engages in some of the conduct described, which tends to cast doubt on the 

Case 3:10-md-02143-RS Document 1800 Filed 02/18/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

claim that disclosure would cause competitive harm.

TSSTK’s position appears to be that any not-previously-public information regarding 

TSSTK’s operations must be sealed. The standard for sealing—even the “good cause” standard 

for material associated with non-dispositive motions—is significantly narrower. See Kamakana v. 

City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1186−87 (9th Cir. 2006). For the reasons stated in the 

Court’s previous Order (dkt. 1799) denying TSSTK’s sealing motion, the DAPs’ present Motion is 

also DENIED without prejudice.1 TSSTK may submit a supplemental declaration no later than 

February 23, 2016 proposing narrowly tailored redactions with more specific explanations of the 

need for sealing—i.e., what harm would result if the testimony were disclosed. If TSSTK does so, 

the Court will deem the present Motion renewed and will issue an order in due course addressing 

TSSTK’s revised proposals.

If TSSTK does not file a supplemental declaration, the DAPs may file their exhibits in the 

public record no earlier than February 29, 2016 and no later than March 4, 2016, except that they 

must redact information designated by the Department of Justice as “Gov’t Protected Mat. / 

Outside Counsel Only.” If TSSTK files a supplemental declaration, the DAPs shall not file the 

exhibits in the public record until the Court rules on that declaration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2016

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

 

1

Except as to material designated by the Department of Justice as protected material.

Case 3:10-md-02143-RS Document 1800 Filed 02/18/16 Page 2 of 2