Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486-127/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re DYNAMIC RANDOM ACCESS

MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION No. M 02-1486 PJH

_______________________________/

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE

This Document Relates to: JULY 11, 2003 PROTECTIVE 

ORDER

All Indirect Purchaser Actions

_______________________________/

The court is in receipt of the parties’ stipulated proposed amendment to the July 11,

2003 protective order entered in this action, which was applied to the indirect purchaser

actions on November 3, 2005. By way of their proposal, the parties seek to address the

court’s concerns about the overly broad nature of the current provision of the protective

order regarding the filing of documents under seal. The court finds the stipulated proposal

unnecessarily confusing, however, and therefore declines to adopt it. Instead, the court

hereby amends the July 11, 2003 protective order’s provision regarding the sealing of

documents as follows:

15. Filing Protected Material. Without written permission from the party or non-party

who produced documents designated as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” under this

Protective order (the “Producing Party”), or a court order obtained after appropriate notice

to all interested persons, a party, other than the Producing Party, may not file in the public

record in this action any documents designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential.” If

any documents designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” would be included in any

pleading, memorandum or other court filing, counsel for the party wishing to include such

“Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” documents shall meet and confer with opposing

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1738 Filed 10/01/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

counsel and/or counsel for the Producing Party in advance of the filing of any such

pleading, memorandum or other court filing, in order to narrow or eliminate the documents

for which the Producing Party seeks confidential status. In attempting to narrow or

eliminate the number of documents for which the Producing Party seeks confidential status,

counsel shall be guided by the standards set forth in Kamakana v. City and County of

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). If the meet and confer does not eliminate the

need for all or part of the pleading, memorandum or other court filing in question to be filed

under seal, the parties shall follow the procedures specified in Civil local Rule 79-5, and

shall furthermore support any request for the sealing of documents with the requisite

showing of need, as set forth in Kamakana. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1738 Filed 10/01/07 Page 2 of 2