Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation
ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND EXHIBITS THERETO; DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF To the extent the administrative motion seeks to seal portions of Mentors motion for summary judgment and the ent irety of exhibit F to the declaration of Marla Beier in support thereof, Mentors administrative motion is granted. The Court defers ruling on exhibits B through E pending Synopsys filing, no later than November 1, 2014, a supplemental response in whi ch Synopsys provides, for each such exhibit, a redacted version limiting the amount of material sought to be sealed. Pending the Courts ruling on the supplemental response, said exhibits will remain under seal. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 14, 2014. (mmclc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2014)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. C 12-6467 MMC
ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
TO SEAL PORTIONS OF
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND EXHIBITS
THERETO; DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF
MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION,
Before the Court is Mentor Graphics Corporation’s (“Mentor”) “Administrative Motion
to File Under Seal Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 and Supporting Exhibits B-F to the Declaration of Marla Beier,” filed October 3, 2014,
pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, by which Mentor seeks to file under seal documents
designated confidential by plaintiff Synopsys Inc. (“Synopsys”). See Civil L.R. 79-5(d)-(e)
(providing, where party seeks to file under seal material designated as confidential by
another party, such party shall file motion for sealing order, after which designating party
must file, within 4 days, “declaration . . . establishing that all of the designated information
is sealable”). On October 7, 2014, Synopsys filed its responsive declaration in support of
sealing. See id. Having read and considered the administrative motion and the parties’
respective declarations, the Court hereby rules as follows.
To the extent the administrative motion seeks to seal portions of Mentor’s motion for
summary judgment and the entirety of exhibit F to the declaration of Marla Beier in support
thereof, Mentor’s administrative motion is GRANTED, and said motion and exhibit may
remain under seal.
As to exhibits B through E to the above-referenced declaration, however, each of
which Mentor seeks to have sealed in its entirety and appears to contain substantial
amounts of non-sealable material, the motion sweeps too broadly. “A sealing order may
issue only upon a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, is
privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.”
Civil L.R. 79-5(a). “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable
material.” Id. In lieu of denial, the Court DEFERS ruling on exhibits B through E pending
Synopsys’ filing, no later than November 1, 2014, a supplemental response in which
Synopsys provides, for each such exhibit, a redacted version limiting the amount of
material sought to be sealed. Pending the Court’s ruling on the supplemental response,
said exhibits will remain under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 14, 2014
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
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?