Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-md-02143/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-md-02143-179/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re OPTICAL DISK DRIVE PRODUCTS 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Case No. 10-md-02143-RS (JCS)

ORDER REGARDING 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 2036, 2053

Plaintiffs Dell Inc. and Dell Products L.P. (collectively, “Dell”) bring two administrative 

motions to file under seal. The first pertains to portions of a joint discovery letter brief, portions 

of a declaration by Dell’s counsel Rodney Ganske, and the entirety of two exhibits thereto, which 

consist of a commercial agreement and an amendment to that agreement. See dkt. 2036. The 

second pertains to portions of an updated joint discovery letter brief, superseding the earlier letter 

brief. See dkt. 2053. The only stated basis for sealing is that Defendants designated the material 

at issue as confidential.

Defendants Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corporationm 

and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. timely filed two declarations by their counsel 

Brendan McShane pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) in support of sealing. McShane’s first 

declaration states that the agreement and amendment include various confidential provisions, the 

disclosure of which “could cause substantial harm to [the parties thereto] by publicizing the 

commercially sensitive terms and conditions of this private agreement.” 1st McShane Decl. (dkt. 

2051) ¶ 6. McShane’s second declaration incorporates the arguments of his first, noting that the 

redacted portions of the updated letter brief are substantially similar to the redacted versions of the 

first letter brief. 2d McShane Decl. (dkt. 2061). McShane’s declarations do not address the 

proposed redactions to Ganske’s declaration.

Case 3:10-md-02143-RS Document 2149 Filed 12/20/16 Page 1 of 3
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

Northern District of California

Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) and Samsung Electronics America, 

Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”), which are not involved in the discovery dispute at issue in the joint 

letter briefs, also timely filed a declaration by their counsel James Pearl in support of sealing. 

Pearl states that the agreement and amendment “disclose SEC’s confidential business 

information,” including “confidential business agreements and other proprietary business 

information.” 1st Pearl Decl. (dkt. 2052) ¶ 7. Pearl also states that the redacted portions of the 

original joint letter brief and of Ganske’s declaration “disclose SEC’s confidential information 

described above.” Id. ¶¶ 8−9. According to Pearl, public disclosure of those materials “poses a 

substantial harm to Samsung because disclosure would reveal SEC’s internal confidential 

information as identified above, including SEC’s confidential business agreements, which were 

the result of private and confidential negotiations between the parties.” Id. ¶ 10. Samsung filed a 

second declaration by Pearl in support of sealing the redacted portions of the updated letter brief 

for the same reasons. 2d Pearl Decl. (dkt. 2060).

The Court has reviewed the exhibits at issue—the agreement and the amendment thereto, 

exhibits I (dkt. 2036-8, under seal) and J (dkt. 2036-9, under seal) to the declaration of Rodney J. 

Ganske—and agrees that there is good cause for sealing those documents to protect confidential 

and sensitive terms of the agreement. Parsing which portions of the agreement warrant redaction 

would be overly burdensome in the context of the present discovery dispute and is therefore not a 

viable alternative to sealing. Dell’s motion to seal those exhibits is therefore GRANTED.

McShane’s and Pearl’s declarations do not, however, adequately explain why the defense 

and indemnity provisions discussed in the joint discovery letter briefs themselves are sufficiently 

sensitive to warrant sealing, nor do they identify any harm that would result from disclosing the 

redacted portions of the letter briefs. The mere fact of disclosure of confidential communications, 

see 1st Pearl Decl. ¶ 10, is not a sufficient harm to support sealing. No risk of unfair advantage to 

competitors or other significant harm is apparent from the face of the letter briefs. The same is 

true of the redacted portions of Ganske’s declaration (dkt. 2036-7, under seal), which merely 

acknowledge the existence of the agreement and amendment. The Court therefore finds no good 

cause for sealing those documents, and DENIES Dell’s motions to seal portions of the letter briefs

Case 3:10-md-02143-RS Document 2149 Filed 12/20/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and Ganske’s declaration. 

Dell shall file unredacted versions of the original and updated joint discovery letter briefs 

and Ganske’s declaration in the public record no later than December 27, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2016

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-md-02143-RS Document 2149 Filed 12/20/16 Page 3 of 3