Siegel v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 162

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 8743 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/13/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 IN RE TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION _______________________________________ 14 This Document Relates to: 15 ALFRED H. SIEGEL, AS TRUSTEE OF THE CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. LIQUIDATING TRUST, 16 No. C 07-01827 SI Individual Case No. 10-05625 SI ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL (Docket No. 8743) Plaintiff, 17 18 v. 19 AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, et al., 20 Defendants. 21 / 22 23 On November 4, 2013, plaintiff Alfred H. Siegel, as Trustee of the Circuit City Stores, Inc. 24 Liquidating Trust, filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions of its opposition to 25 defendant AU Optronics Corporation’s motion for partial summary judgment on choice-of-law grounds. 26 See Dkt. 8743. The plaintiff takes no position regarding whether there is good cause for sealing the 27 documents, but submits that the defendant has designated these documents “highly confidential” 28 pursuant to the Protective Order governing this action. Id. 1 When a party seeks to file under seal a document the opposing party has designated as 2 confidential, Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) governs the procedure that must be followed. Under this Rule, 3 the designating party must file a declaration “establishing that all of the designated material is sealable,” 4 within four days of the filing of the administrative motion to seal. Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1). To date, the 5 defendant has not filed anything in response to the plaintiff’s administrative motion. Thus, the 6 defendant has not met its burden of demonstrating that the designated material is sealable. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the plaintiff’s administrative motion to seal. Dkt. 8743. This 8 denial is without prejudice to the plaintiff refiling the motion and the defendant submitting the required 9 responsive declaration, no later than November 18, 2013. The defendant is reminded that this 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 7 declaration must be narrowly tailored and must demonstrate “compelling reasons supported by specific 11 factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, 12 such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 13 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 18 Dated: November 13, 2013 19 SUSAN ILLSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?