Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01200/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-01200-27/pdf.json

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

---

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

SUN MICROSYSTEMS INC.,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-1665 PJH

v. ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL

IN CONJUNCTION WITH DEFENDANTS’

DISPOSITIVE MOTION FILINGS

 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

This Document Also Relates to:

Unisys Corp. v. Hynix et al., C 06-2915 PJH

All American Semiconductor v. Hynix et al., C 07-1200 PJH

Edge Electronics v. Hynix et al., C 07-1207 PJH

Jaco Electronics v. Hynix et al., C 07-1212 PJH

DRAM Claims Liquidation Trust v. Hynix et al., C 07-1381 PJH

_______________________________/

The court has reviewed the parties’ various requests to seal, which were filed on

August 6, 2008, in conjunction with the imminent filing of defendants’ dispositive motions. 

After reviewing the various requests, the court has determined that the requests to seal are

not supported by a showing of “compelling need,” as required under Kamakana v. City and

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). While some documents are arguably

supported by a showing of good cause, good cause is not enough to establish proper

grounds for the sealing of documents filed in conjunction with dispositive motions. 

Accordingly, the court hereby DENIES the parties’ requests to seal the documents that

have been lodged with the court in connection with tomorrow’s filing of defendants’ motions

for summary judgment. 

Case 4:07-cv-01200-PJH Document 219 Filed 08/07/08 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

The single exception to this ruling is third party Celestica Inc.’s request to seal

Exhibit 3 to the Rock Deposition – i.e., the May 18, 1999 Master External Manufacturing

Agreement (MEMA) between Sun and Celestica. Celestica is the only third party to request

sealing of any documents. The court finds that, as a non-party to the present proceedings,

Celestica’s showing satisfies the compelling need standard contemplated by Kamakana,

and the court accordingly GRANTS Celestica’s request to file Exhibit 3 to the Rock

Deposition under seal. Celestica’s remaining request is, however, DENIED. And since no

other third parties have submitted particularized requests to file any third party documents

under seal, there is no justification for filing any other third party documents under seal. 

To the extent that the parties intend to file any of the documents currently lodged

with the court in connection with the filing of dispositive motions tomorrow, the parties are

instructed to file all such documents as part of the public record (save for the single

exception noted above). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-01200-PJH Document 219 Filed 08/07/08 Page 2 of 2