Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-223/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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFFS’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 

Master File No. 3:07-md-05944-SC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

IN RE CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Master File No. 3:07-md-05944-SC

MDL No. 1917

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFFS’ 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 

PORTIONS OF THEIR OPPOSITION TO 

THOMSON CONSUMER’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL 

RULES 7-11 AND 79-5(d)

This Document Relates To:

Best Buy Co, Inc. v. Technicolor

SA, et al., No. 13-cv-05264; 

Siegel v. Technicolor SA, et al., No. 13-cv00141; 

Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Technicolor SA, et 

al., No. 13-cv-05723; 

Electrograph Systems, Inc. v. Technicolor SA, 

et al., No. 13-cv-05724; 

Interbond Corp. of Am. v. Technicolor SA, et 

al., No. 13-cv-05727;

Office Depot, Inc. v. Technicolor SA, et al.,

No. 13-cv-05726; 

P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp. v.

Technicolor SA, et al., No. 13-cv-05725; 

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Technicolor SA, et 

al., No. 13-cv-05262; 

Schultze Agency Services, LLC v. Technicolor 

SA, et al., No. 13-cv-05668; and 

Target Corp. v. Technicolor SA, et al., No. 13-

cv-05686

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2424 Filed 03/07/14 Page 1 of 2 Case3:07-cv-05944-SC Document2377-2 Filed02/10/14 Page1 of 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

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

DIRECT ACTION PLAINTIFFS’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

- 1 - Master File No. 3:07-md-05944-SC 

On February 10, 2014, Plaintiffs Best Buy Co., Inc.; Best Buy Purchasing LLC; Best Buy 

Enterprise Services, Inc.; Best Buy Stores, L.P.; BestBuy.com, L.L.C.; Magnolia Hi-Fi, L.L.C.; 

Alfred H. Siegel (as trustee of the Circuit City Stores, Inc. Liquidating Trust); Electrograph 

Systems, Inc.; Electrograph Technologies Corp.; Interbond Corporation of America; Office 

Depot, Inc.; Costco Wholesale Corporation; P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation; ABC 

Appliance, Inc.; MARTA Cooperative of America, Inc.; Schultze Agency Services, LLC, (on 

behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC, and Tweeter Newco, LLC); Sears Roebuck and Co. and Kmart 

Corp.; and Target Corp., (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed an Administrative Motion to Seal 

Portions of their Opposition to Thomson Consumer’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Civil Local 

Rules 7-11 and 79-5(d) to file under seal the highlighted portions of the following documents:

• Direct Action Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Thomson Consumer’s Motion to Dismiss 

Complaints (“Opposition”)

Having read and considered the papers filed and arguments made by counsel, and good 

cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Seal 

Portions of Their Opposition to Thomson Consumer’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Local Civil 

Rules 7-11 and 79-5(d) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: 

Hon. Samuel Conti

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case3:07-cv-05944-SC Document2377-2 Filed02/10/14 Page2 of 2

March 7, 2014

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 2424 Filed 03/07/14 Page 2 of 2