Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486-40/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 No. M 02-1486 PJH

MEMORY (DRAM) ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION ORDER RE SEALED DOCUMENTS

_______________________________/

The parties have requested that the court order the sealing of numerous documents

offered in support of and in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. As the

court explained at the May 17, 2006 hearing, neither party has made an adequate showing

for the extensive sealing orders that are sought. The parties were ordered to meet and

confer and to submit a joint list of exhibits to be sealed along with a brief explanation as to

why the sealing is necessary. The parties were further advised that, having read all of the

briefs, the court was disinclined to permit the extensive redaction that the parties have

undertaken. 

The parties are still ordered to meet and confer, but may instead file separate

requests to seal after reading and evaluating their requests in light of the Ninth Circuit’s

recent opinion in Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 2006 WL 1329926, filed May 17, 2006,

which holds that a party seeking to maintain the confidentiality of documents attached to

dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing “compelling reasons.” A

“good cause” showing under Rule 26(c) will only suffice to keep sealed records attached to

non-dispositive motions. A good cause showing without more will not satisfy a compelling

reasons test. Additionally, the articulation of a specific link between a general category or

privilege and the documents or portions of documents at issue is required. Id. at 5.

The distinction between dispositive and non-dispositive motions is based upon the

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 874 Filed 05/18/06 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

Ninth Circuit’s determination that documents attached to non-dispositive motions are often

unrelated, or only tangentially related to the underlying cause of action. Id. at 5. Because,

the vast majority of documents at issue here are related to the merits of the underlying

action and because a motion for class certification is more akin to a dispositive motion

(summary judgment motion) than a non-dispositive motion (discovery motion), for its impact

on the litigation, the court requires that the parties meet the high showing of “compelling

reasons” for the sealing and redactions sought, keeping in mind that “[t]he mere fact that

production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to

further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal the records.”

Id. at 4 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir.

2003)).

The requests for a sealing order shall be filed by May 24, 2006. Thereafter, the

court will determine which if any documents will be filed under seal, which will be filed in the

public record, and which documents will have to be re-filed in unredacted form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 874 Filed 05/18/06 Page 2 of 2