Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation
ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE AND EXHIBITS THERETO; DIRECTIONS TO PARTIES To the extent the administrative motion seeks to seal portions of Synopsys opposition and the entire ty of exhibits D, E, F, L, M, O, P, R, and W to the Woo declaration, the administrative motion is granted, and Synopsys opposition and said exhibits thereto may remain under seal. As to exhibits G, N, T, and V to the Woo declaration, the motion is de nied, and Synopsys is directed to file in the public record, no earlier than October 27, 2014, and no later than November 3, 2014, exhibits G, N, T, and V to the Woo declaration. The Court defers ruling on exhibit S pending Mentors filing, no later than October 31, 2014, a supplemental response that provides for said exhibit a redacted version limiting the amount of material sought to be sealed. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 22, 2014. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2014)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
No. C 12-6467 MMC
ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
TO SEAL PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
AND EXHIBITS THERETO;
DIRECTIONS TO PARTIES
MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION,
Before the Court is “Synopsys’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Opposition
to Mentor’s Motion to Strike and Exclude Blanton Opinions,” filed October 17, 2014, by
plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”), pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5. Having read and
considered the administrative motion and declarations filed in support thereof, the Court
hereby rules as follows.
“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.
By the instant motion, Synopsys seeks to seal portions of Synopsys’ opposition, and
the entirety of exhibits D-G, L-P, R-T, V, and W to the declaration of Philip W. Woo (“Woo
declaration”) in support thereof. Various portions of said material have been designated
confidential by Synopsys and other portions of said material have been designated
confidential by defendant Mentor Graphics Corporation (“Mentor”). See Civil L.R. 79-5(d)-
(e) (providing, where party seeks to file under seal material designated 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 21, 2014, Mentor filed its responsive declaration in support of
sealing. See id.
To the extent the administrative motion seeks to seal portions of Synopsys’
opposition and the entirety of exhibits D, E, F, L, M, O, P, R, and W to the Woo declaration,
the administrative motion is GRANTED, and Synopsys’ opposition and said exhibits thereto
may remain under seal.
As to exhibits G, N, T, and V to the Woo declaration, all of which were designated
confidential by Mentor, no responsive declaration under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d) has been
submitted by said designating party. Accordingly, to the extent Synopsys’ administrative
motion seeks sealing of said exhibits, the motion is DENIED, and Synopsys is DIRECTED
to file in the public record, no earlier than October 27, 2014, and no later than November 3,
2014, exhibits G, N, T, and V to the Woo declaration.
Lastly, exhibit S to the Woo declaration, contrary to Mentor’s assertion that the
entirety of the document is sealable, appears to contain substantial amounts of non-
sealable material. In lieu of denial, the Court DEFERS ruling on exhibit S pending Mentor’s
filing, no later than October 31, 2014, a supplemental response that provides for said
exhibit a redacted version limiting the amount of material sought to be sealed. Pending the
Court’s ruling on the supplemental response, said exhibit will remain under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 22, 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?