Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-141/pdf.json

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL No. 1917

Case No. C-07-5944-SC

ORDER DENYING SHARP 

PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS 

PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL 

RULES 7-11 and 79-5(d)

This Order Relates To:

Sharp Electronics Corp., et al. 

v. Hitachi Ltd., et al., 

Case No. C 13-1173 (SC) 

On July 26, 2013, Plaintiffs Sharp Electronics Corporation and 

Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc. 

(collectively the "Sharp Plaintiffs") filed an Administrative 

Motion to Seal Documents Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-

5(d). ECF No. 1798 ("Sharp Mot."). Rule 79-5(d) requires the 

Sharp Plaintiffs to file certain documents under seal because 

Defendants Toshiba Corporation, Panasonic Corporation, and Samsung 

SDI Co., Ltd., marked them confidential per this case's protective 

order. Rule 79-5(d) gave those Defendants seven days from the 

Sharp Motion's filing date to file (1) a declaration establishing 

that the information designated in the Sharp Motion is properly 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1831 Filed 08/06/13 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

For the Northern District of California

sealable, and (2) a narrowly tailored proposed sealing order. The 

Defendants have filed nothing.

Accordingly, per Local Rule 79-5(d), the Court DENIES the 

Sharp Motion. The Sharp Plaintiffs are to file their documents in 

the public record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 1831 Filed 08/06/13 Page 2 of 2