1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. 3:12-cv-06003-CRB

13

ORDER DENYING PENDING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL

IN RE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE
12 LITIGATION

14
15

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
ALL ACTIONS
/

16
17

This litigation now having been resolved, the Court must determine which documents,

18

or portions thereof, should remain permanently shielded from public view. The Court has

19

received numerous motions to seal certain portions of documents which number in the

20

thousands of pages, most of which are heavily or entirely redacted. Specifically, the Court

21

now has before it the following pending motions: Hewlett Packard’s Administrative Motion

22

to File Under Seal (dkt. 337); Hewlett Packard’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal

23

(dkt. 367); Objector A.J. Copeland’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (dkt. 378);

24

Objector Harriet Steinberg’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (dkt. 380); Objectors

25

A.J. Copeland’s and Harriet Steinberg’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (dkt. 390);

26

Hewlett Packard’s Objection re Unsealing in Part of Consolidated Shareholder Derivative

27

Complaint; Hewlett Packard’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (dkt. 398);

28

Directors’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (dkt. 401); and Objector Harriet
Steinberg’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (dkt. 404).

 For the following reasons, all pending motions to seal are hereby DENIED. As an

1
2

initial matter,

3
4
5
6
7

p
f

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

It has also not escaped the Court’s attention that

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

p
2

 1
2
3
4

p

5

Moreover,

6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

f

In that same vein,

16
17
18
19
20
21

p
f

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

 United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

For the foregoing reasons, the pending administrative motions to seal are 



R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2015

 

1 N0 motion for reconsideration will be entertained 1mless HP identi?es within tln?ee days ?a
limited amount of exceptionally sensitive infonnation that truly deselves protection? under the
?compelling reasons? standard of Kamakana V. itv and tv. ofHonolulu, 447 F.3d 1 172, 1 178?79 (9th
Cir. 2006). outlined by page and line number and including ?speci?c factual ?ndings? for each. 
O?Connorv. Uber Technologies, Inc, No. 2015 WL 355496, at *1 (ND. Cal. Jan. 27.
2015). In light of the ?public interest in understanding the judicial process? as it relates to the settlement
of these claims. the 01111 will not c01u1tenance arguments that public ?ling would put HP at a
competitive or legal disadvantage. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178?79.

4