Hu v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc et al

Filing 121

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting in part and denying in part 111 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 In re CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. ) SECURITIES LITIGATION ) ) ) This Order Relates to: ) ) CASE NOS. 08-4966 SC, 08-5027 SC, ) and 08-5273 SC ) ) Case No. 08-4966 SC ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

Plaintiff Alaska Electrical Pension Fund ("Plaintiff") brings this Administrative Motion to file under seal certain documents designated as confidential by Defendant Cadence Design Systems, Inc. ("Defendant"). Docket No. 111 ("Motion"). Pursuant to a

protective order granted by the Court, see Docket No. 112 ("Stipulated Protective Order"), Defendant has designated certain documents it produced in discovery as confidential. In Plaintiff's

Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ("MPSJ Opp'n"), which Plaintiff filed under seal, Plaintiff referenced a number of these documents. Plaintiff also attached

these documents as exhibits to a declaration in support of its MPSJ Opposition, which Plaintiff also filed under seal. Exs. 1-18, 28, 29.1 Civil Local Rule 79-5(d) requires a party seeking to file a Shawn A. Williams ("Williams"), counsel for Plaintiff, filed a declaration in support of the MPSJ Opposition. Williams Decl.,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
For the Northern District of California

document designated as confidential by another party to file an administrative motion with the court. The designating party then

has seven days to preserve the document's confidentiality by filing and serving a "declaration establishing that the designated information is sealable" and "a narrowly tailored proposed sealing order." Id. Both parties have complied with this rule: Plaintiff

filed the present Motion, and Defendant submitted a declaration explaining in detail why the material is proprietary and confidential business information. See Cooley Decl.2 Defendant

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

seeks to protect some, but not all, of the documents, and it has identified the specific language it seeks to keep confidential by attaching suggested redacted versions of each document. Exs. 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17, 18, 28, 29. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART this Motion. The See id.,

United States District Court

following documents attached as exhibits to the Cooley Declaration shall be filed under seal: · · · · · · · · · ·
2

Exhibit 4 (Bates numbered CDNS00003667-3668); Exhibit 6 (Bates numbered CDNS00000971-0972); Exhibit 7 (Bates numbered CDNS00000975-0979); Exhibit 8 (Bates numbered CDNS00000474-0479); Exhibit 13 (Bates numbered CDNS00002729-2730); Exhibit 14 (Bates numbered CDNS00002617-2638); Exhibit 17 (Bates numbered CDNS00002582-2604); Exhibit 18 (Bates numbered CDNS00000374-0378); Exhibit 28 (Bates numbered CDNS00002049); and Exhibit 29 (Bates numbered CDNS00000538-0539).

Tom Cooley ("Cooley"), counsel for Defendant, has filed a declaration in support of the Motion. Docket No. 111.

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
For the Northern District of California

Plaintiffs shall e-file the above-listed documents, but only in the redacted form proposed by Defendants. Plaintiffs shall e-

file Exhibits 1-3, 5, 9-12, 15-16, 19-27, and 30-47 without redaction. Plaintiff shall also e-file a version of its MPSJ

Opposition in which any reference to the redacted text in the above documents is redacted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: June 17, 2010 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court

3