LG.Philips LCD Co. Ltd. v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, 1:06-cv-00726

Anvik moved for reconsideration of a prior order denying access to sealed materials and transcripts under a protective order.
Anvik sought sealed transcripts and related sealed documents to aid a separate New York Action against LG Display.
The court reaffirmed that Anvik waived its public right of access argument by raising it for the first time in its Reply Brief.
The court concluded Anvik did not demonstrate entitlement to the transcripts or sealed materials despite noting potential relevance to the New York Action.
Under Local Rule 7.1.5, reconsideration is granted only for intervening law, new evidence, or clear error; none were shown.
The court denied Anvik’s Motion for Reconsideration or Reargument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reconsideration was warranted.	Anvik argues the court erred factually and in application of law.	AUO and LGD contend no error or new evidence; waiver of public access argument.	Reconsideration denied.
Whether Anvik waived its public right of access argument.	Anvik asserts ongoing public right to access judicial records.	Waiver occurred because argument raised only in Reply Brief and not properly asserted earlier.	Waiver affirmed; no reconsideration on waiver.
Whether sealed transcripts were properly denied for NY Action relevance.	Transcripts are relevant to the New York Action against LGD.	Even if relevant, need outweighed confidentiality; insufficient showing of necessity.	Not entitled to access; materials remain protected.

Max's Seafood Cafe by LouAnn, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (intervening change in controlling law not shown; reconsideration standards)