Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation

Filing 309

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND EXHIBITS THERETO; DIRECTIONS TO PARTIES Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 14, 2014. (mmclc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

SYNOPSYS, INC.,

No. C 12-6467 MMC

10
ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
TO SEAL PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND EXHIBITS THERETO,
DIRECTIONS TO PARTIES

Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION,
13
Defendant.
14
/
15
16

Before the Court is “Synopsys’ Administrative Motion to File Omnibus Motion for

17

Summary Judgment Under Seal,” filed October 3, 2014, by plaintiff Synopsys, Inc.

18

(“Synopsys”), pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5. Having read and considered the

19

administrative motion and declarations filed in support thereof, the Court hereby rules as

20

follows.

21

“A sealing order may issue only upon a request that establishes that the document,

22

or portions thereof, is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to

23

protection under the law.” Civil L.R. 79-5(a). “The request must be narrowly tailored to

24

seek sealing only of sealable material.” Id.

25

By the instant motion, Synopsys seeks to seal portions of Synopsys’ motion for

26

summary judgment, the entirety of exhibits 6, 8, 10-13, 15-17, 19, 20, 25-30, 33, 36, and

27

38-46 to the declaration of Philip W. Woo (“Woo declaration”) in support thereof, the

28

entirety of the declaration of Martin G. Walker in support thereof, and the entirety of the
declaration of Ronald D. (Shawn) Blanton in support thereof. Various portions of said

1

material have been designated confidential by Synopsys and other portions of said material

2

have been designated by Mentor. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d)-(e) (providing, where party seeks

3

to file under seal material designated as confidential by another party, such party shall file

4

motion for sealing order, after which designating party must file, within 4 days, “declaration

5

. . . establishing that all of the designated information is sealable”). On October 7, 2014,

6

Mentor filed its responsive declaration in support of sealing. See id.

7

To the extent the administrative motion seeks to seal portions of Synopsys’ motion

8

for summary judgment and the entirety of exhibits 11, 12, 19, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 36,

9

38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 46 to the Woo declaration, the administrative motion is

10

GRANTED, and Synopsys’ motion for summary judgment and said exhibits thereto may

11

remain under seal.

12

As to exhibits 6 and 17 to the Woo declaration, which exhibits were designated

13

confidential by Mentor, no responsive declaration under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d) has been

14

submitted by said designating party. Accordingly, to the extent Synopsys’ motion seeks

15

sealing of said exhibits, the motion is DENIED, and Synopsys is DIRECTED to file in the

16

public record, no earlier than October 20, 2014, and no later than October 24, 2014,

17

exhibits 6 and 17 to the Woo declaration.

18

As to exhibits 8 and 10 to the Woo declaration, contrary to Synopsys’ assertion that

19

the materials are sealable, the documents appear to contain substantial amounts of non-

20

sealable material. In lieu of denial, the Court DEFERS ruling on exhibits 8 and 10 pending

21

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

22

Synopsys provides, for each such exhibit, a redacted version limiting the amount of

23

material sought to be sealed. Pending the Court’s ruling on the supplemental response,

24

said exhibits will remain under seal.

25

Exhibits 15 and 16 to the Woo declaration, although declared sealable by both

26

parties, likewise appear to contain substantial amounts of non-sealable material. In lieu of

27

denial, the Court DEFERS ruling on exhibits 15 and 16 pending each parties’ filing, no later

28

than November 1, 2014, a supplemental response that provides, for each such exhibit, a
2

1

redacted version limiting the amount of material sought to be sealed. Pending the Court’s

2

ruling on the supplemental responses, said exhibits will remain under seal.

3

As to exhibits 13, and 27 to the Woo declaration and the declaration of Martin G.

4

Walker, Ph.D., contrary to Synopsys’ assertion that said documents are sealable, the

5

documents appear to consist entirely of non-sealable information. To the extent such

6

exhibits may contain material meeting Synopsys’ purported justification for sealing,

7

however, the Court DEFERS ruling thereon pending Synopsys’ filing, no later than

8

November 1, 2014, a supplemental response in which Synopsys provides, for each such

9

exhibit, a redacted version limiting the amount of material sought to be sealed. Pending

10

the Court’s ruling on the supplemental response, said exhibits will remain under seal.

11

As to exhibit 40 to the Woo declaration, contrary to Mentor’s assertion that the

12

exhibit is sealable, the exhibit appears to consist entirely of non-sealable information

13

already available to the public. To the extent said exhibits may contain material meeting

14

Mentor’s purported justification for sealing, however, the Court DEFERS ruling thereon

15

pending Mentor’s filing, no later than November 1, 2014, a supplemental response that

16

provides for said exhibit a redacted version limiting the amount of material sought to be

17

sealed. Pending the Court’s ruling on the supplemental response, said exhibit will remain

18

under seal.

19

Lastly, as to the declaration of Ronald D. (Shawn) Blanton, Ph.D., the motion is

20

GRANTED to the extent the parties seek to seal the material beginning on page 18, line 21,

21

through page 72, line 5 and otherwise is DENIED. Synopsys is DIRECTED to file in the

22

public record, no later than October 21, 2014, a redacted version of said declaration.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

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

26
27
28
3