Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation

Filing 306

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE AND EXHIBITS THERETO; DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 14, 2014. To the extent the administrative motion seeks to seal po rtions of Mentors motion to exclude, Mentors administrative motion is GRANTED, and said motion may remain under seal. The Court defers ruling on exhibits A through D 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. (mmclc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SYNOPSYS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION,
Defendant.
/

17

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
TO SEAL PORTIONS OF
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
AND EXHIBITS THERETO;
DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF

v.

16

18

No. C 12-6467 MMC

Before the Court is Mentor Graphics Corporation’s (“Mentor”) “Administrative Motion
to File Under Seal Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Legal Opinions and Assumptions from
Martin G. Walker, Ph. D. and Donald Thomas, Ph. D. Regarding Validity of Asserted Patent
Claims and Supporting Exhibits A-D to the Declaration of Xuangiang Tran,” filed October 3,
2014, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5,1 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

26
27
28

1

By order filed October 13, 2014, the Court struck Mentor’s motion to exclude,
without prejudice to refiling at a later date. (See Doc. No. 303.) The motion and supporting
exhibits, however, remain a part of the Clerk’s docket.

1

designating party must file, within 4 days, “declaration . . . establishing that all of the

2

designated information is sealable”). On October 7, 2014, Synopsys filed its responsive

3

declaration in support of sealing. See id. Having read and considered the administrative

4

motion and the parties’ respective declarations, the Court hereby rules as follows.

5

To the extent the administrative motion seeks to seal portions of Mentor’s motion to

6

exclude, Mentor’s administrative motion is GRANTED, and said motion may remain under

7

seal.

8

As to the above-referenced exhibits, however, each of which Mentor seeks, on

9

Synopsys’ designation, to have sealed in its entirety and appears to contain substantial

10

amounts of non-sealable material, the motion is overbroad. “A sealing order may issue

11

only upon a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, is privileged or

12

protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civil L.R.

13

79-5(a). “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.”

14

Id. In lieu of denial, the Court DEFERS ruling on exhibits A through D pending Synopsys’

15

filing, no later than November 1, 2014, a supplemental response in which Synopsys

16

provides, for each such exhibit, a redacted version limiting the amount of material sought to

17

be sealed. Pending the Court’s ruling on the supplemental response, said exhibits will

18

remain under seal.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: October 14, 2014
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2