In Stanislaus Food Products Co. v. USS-Posco Industries et al., Eastern District of California Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill granted U.S. Steel Corp., USS-Posco Industries and other steelmakers’ motion for summary judgment in a suit filed against them by tomato cannery Stanislaus Food Products Co. Stanislaus’ suit alleged that the defendants struck a deal in 2006 to allocate the market for steel sheets in the western U.S., forcing it to buy cans at inflated prices starting in 2009. Stanislaus claimed that until 2006, U.S. Steel made its own steel sheets and directly competed with USS-Posco in the western U.S. But in 2006, U.S. Steel, Pohang Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., and their various subsidiaries allegedly agreed to allocate market share to USS-Posco. As a result, Stanislaus claimed, the price for steel and tin went up substantially despite a decrease in raw material prices, forcing it to pay inflated prices for tin cans. In their second bid for summary judgment, defendants pointed out that Stanislaus had finally conceded that U.S. Steel hadn’t stopped selling tin-mill products in the western U.S., “a fact this court described as the ‘linchpin’ of plaintiff’s alleged market allocation agreement.” Stanislaus subsequently requested an order allowing it to file its opposition to the defendants’ motion under seal. The court granted the request, saying there were “compelling reasons” for keeping the information in the opposition under wraps. The court’s order granting defendants summary judgment was sealed and did not provide any information about the order other than stating that “the issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.”