Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-md-02420/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-md-02420-99/pdf.json

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

---

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IN RE: LITHIUM ION BATTERIES 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION Case No.: 13-MD-2420 YGR

ORDER DENYING TOSHIBA CORPORATION’S 

MOTION TO SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

 

Re: Dkt. No. 991 

This Order Relates to: 

 

All Direct and Indirect Purchaser 

Actions

On December 14, 2015, Toshiba Corporation filed a motion to seal two exhibits in 

connection with its reply brief in support of its motion for summary judgment pursuant to Local 

Rule 79-5. (Dkt. No. 991.) Toshiba does not object to the public filing of the documents in 

question. (Dkt. No. 991-1.) Both documents are patent licensing agreements between Toshiba 

and others—Sanyo in the case of Exhibit B and Panasonic (then operating as Matsushita Electric 

Industrial Co., Ltd.) in the case of Exhibit C. 

Where a party files a motion to seal solely because the document at issue contains material 

“designated as confidential by the opposing party or a non-party pursuant to a protective order,” 

the designating party is “required” to file a responsive declaration within four days “establishing 

that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(e). 

On December 18, 2015, defendants Panasonic and Sanyo filed a declaration in support of 

sealing the documents in their entirety, on the basis that they “contain[] confidential, nonpublic, 

proprietary, and highly-sensitive business information about [defendants’] business practices and 

competitive positions.” (Dkt. No. 997 at 2-3.) 

Two different standards govern motions to seal. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 565 F.3d 

1106, 1115-16 (9th Cir. 2009) opinion amended and superseded on denial of reh'g, 605 F.3d 665 

(9th Cir. 2010). For judicial records submitted, as here, in connection with a dispositive motion, 

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 1180 Filed 03/24/16 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 Californi

a

the party seeking to seal the record must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that would overcome 

the public’s right to view public records and documents, including judicial records. Id. (citing

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). Parties must 

provide sufficient support for sealing the material at issue. See Civil Local Rule 79-5(b) (“A 

sealing order may issue only upon a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, 

are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . 

The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .”); Civil Local 

Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A) (requiring “[a] declaration establishing that the document sought to be filed 

under seal, or portions thereof, are sealable”). 

Plaintiffs oppose the sealing request, arguing Panasonic and Sanyo have failed to establish 

a compelling need to seal the documents in their entirety. (Dkt. No. 998.) The Court agrees and 

thus DENIES the motion to seal without prejudice. Panasonic and Sanyo may file a renewed 

motion to seal these exhibits proposing specific redactions by no later than March 30, 2016. If no 

such motion is filed by the deadline, Toshiba shall file unredacted versions of the exhibits on the 

public docket by April 1, 2016. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 991. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 24, 2016 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:13-md-02420-YGR Document 1180 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of 2