Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-md-02143/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-md-02143-164/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 ANTITRUST

LITIGATION 

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

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 1948

On September 21, 2016, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to 

file certain material under seal. See Admin. Mot. (dkt. 1948). The only stated basis for sealing is 

that the material at issue was designated by Defendants as “Confidential” or “ConfidentialRestricted” under the parties’ stipulated protective order. See id. 

Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) provides that when a party moves to file under seal on the basis 

that another party has designated material as confidential, “the Designating Party must file a 

declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material 

is sealable” within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). That time has expired and Defendants have

not filed a responsive declaration. The administrative motion is therefore DENIED, and the 

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file the material at issue in the public record no 

earlier than September 3, 2016 and no later than September 7, 2016. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2016

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-md-02143-RS Document 1954 Filed 09/27/16 Page 1 of 1