Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-md-01486-86/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

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

TO SEAL RE SUMMARY

This Document Relates to: JUDGMENT

All Direct Purchaser Actions

_______________________________/

On February 20, 2007, the court issued its order granting summary judgment in part

and denying summary judgment in part. In it, the court instructed the parties to re-file the

motions to seal that had been filed in connection with the summary judgment motions, in

order to allow the court to make a streamlined and efficient determination of the parties’

sealing requests. Pursuant to that order, defendants Infineon, Hynix, and Micron have now

filed revised motions to seal certain documents that were filed in connection with plaintiffs’

opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motions.

Preliminarily, defendants point out that the court has granted previous requests to

seal similar documents (and in one case, the same document) in connection with plaintiffs’

motion for class certification, decided by the court last year. However, this does not control

the court’s decision here. A higher burden is imposed on dispositive motions than on nondispositive motions. See, e.g., Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th

Cir. 2006)(compelling reasons must be shown to seal judicial records attached to a

dispositive motion); see also Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1135-36

(9th Cir. 2003). And even though the court applied Kamakana’s “compelling reasons”

standard to the parties’ prior motions to seal in connection with the class certification

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1455 Filed 03/06/07 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

motion (finding that motion akin to a dispositive motion), the court nonetheless scrutinizes

the instant motions to seal with a finer lens, in view of the fact that they are filed in

connection with actual summary judgment motions, and in view of the fact that they are

likely to be proffered as exhibits at trial. 

Applying Kamakana in the context of the instant motions to seal, defendants have

not demonstrated sufficient “compelling reasons” for a sealing order. See Kamakana, 447

F.3d at 1180. Although defendants each assert that the documents they seek to have

sealed reveal critical proprietary information regarding defendants’ commercial and pricing

policies and strategies, inventory strategies, and internal sales and marketing policies,

none of the documents actually appears to contain information directly revealing such

proprietary information. Moreover, none of the documents appears qualitatively different

from the kind of information that has already been filed in the public record in this case, and

which will be treated publicly at trial. 

Accordingly, all three motions are DENIED. To the extent that any party’s motion to

seal, filed in connection with the dispositive motions at issue, is still pending due to that

party’s failure to withdraw or re-file their motion pursuant to the court’s February 20, 2007

order, those motions are also hereby DENIED. The parties are further instructed to file (a)

unredacted versions of all corresponding documents that were filed partially or wholly

redacted; and (b) all corresponding documents that were filed pursuant to a manual filing

notification and conditionally lodged under seal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-md-01486-PJH Document 1455 Filed 03/06/07 Page 2 of 2