Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00086/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00086-25/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 

ADMIN. MOT. TO SEAL

NO. C 07-0086-SBA

MICHAEL F. TUBACH (S.B. #145955) – mtubach@omm.com

RYAN J. PADDEN (S.B. #204515) – rpadden@omm.com 

CHRISTOPHER S. HALES (S.B. #233349) – chales@omm.com 

CHRISTINA J. BROWN (S.B. #242130) – cjbrown@omm.com 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 984-8700 

Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 

KENNETH R. O’ROURKE (S.B. #120144) – korourke@omm.com 

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 

400 South Hope Street 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899 

Telephone: (213) 430-6000 

Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 

Attorneys for Defendants 

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC. AND 

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

IN RE FLASH MEMORY 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to: 

All Indirect Purchaser Actions 

No. C 07-0086-SBA 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG AND 

HYNIX’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 

TO SEAL PORTION OF ORDER 

PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULES 7-11 

AND 79-5 

Judge: Saundra B. Armstrong 

Case 4:07-cv-00086-SBA Document 722 Filed 06/09/10 Page 1 of 3
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 

ADMIN. MOT. TO SEAL

NO. C 07-0086-SBA

On March 31, 2010, this Court issued its Order Denying Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Class Certification; Denying Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to 

Amend; and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Motion to 

Dismiss Claims of Christopher Bessette (the “Order”).1

 The Court placed the Order under 

seal, and required the parties by April 22, 2010 to “jointly advise the Court which facts, if 

any, they contend should be redacted from the public version of this ruling. To the extent any 

party seeks redaction of any portion of the Court’s ruling, such party shall provide the Court 

with the legal authority for such request and a proposed redacted order for public disclosure.” 

(Order at 29.) 

With respect to this Order, on April 22, 2010, Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., 

Ltd. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., (“Samsung”) and Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and 

Hynix Semiconductor America Inc. (“Hynix”) filed an Administrative Motion to Seal Portion 

of Order Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5 (“Motion to Seal”) seeking to seal the 

percentages of Samsung’s and Hynix’s NAND Flash sales attributable to Apple, and the 

amount and proportion of Apple’s purchases from Defendants, and to redact those figures 

from the public version of the Order. (See Order at 14:5-9.) Also on April 22, 2010, 

Samsung filed the Declaration of Joseph C. Sarles in Support of the Motion to Seal, and 

Hynix filed the Declaration of Christina J. Brown in Support of the Motion to Seal. 

After due consideration of the papers submitted, the Court’s previously entered 

Protective Order, and the Court’s file in this matter, and good cause appearing therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. The Motion to Seal is GRANTED. The Clerk shall place in the public record 

the redacted version of the Court’s March 31, 2010 Order, as lodged by Defendants and 

modified by the Court. The public, redacted version will include a case citation update and 

 1

 In anticipation of the motion hearing, Defendants filed a Motion for Administrative 

Relief Pursuant to Local Rule 7-11 for Order Directing the United States Marshals Service 

and/or Federal Security Services to Admit into the Federal Courthouse Electronic Equipment 

for Use at Hearing. Since the motion was resolved without a hearing, this request is denied as 

moot. 

Case 4:07-cv-00086-SBA Document 722 Filed 06/09/10 Page 2 of 3
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 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ADMIN. 

MOT. TO SEAL DOCUMENTS

NO. C 07-0086-SBA

will delete paragraph 5 of the Conclusion on page 29 of the under seal order, since that 

provision is now moot for purposes of the public version of the order. 

2. Defendants’ Motion for Administrative Relief Pursuant to Local Rule 7-11 for 

Order Directing the United States Marshals Service and/or Federal Security Services to Admit 

into the Federal Courthouse Electronic Equipment for Use at Hearing is DENIED as moot. 

3. This order terminates Docket Nos. 690 and 712. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 8, 2010 

Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Court Judge

Case 4:07-cv-00086-SBA Document 722 Filed 06/09/10 Page 3 of 3