Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc

Filing 297

ORDER TAKING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 273 UNDER SUBMISSION WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT; ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATIONS ON MOTIONS TO SEAL. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 05/11/15. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SYNOPSYS, INC.,

Case No. 13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR)

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

ATOPTECH, INC,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ORDER TAKING MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS UNDER SUBMISSION
WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT;
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLARATIONS ON MOTIONS TO
SEAL

12
13
14

TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:
The court has received Synopsys’s motion for sanctions [Docket No. 273] and finds that

15

the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

16

Accordingly, the May 14, 2015 hearing on the motion is hereby VACATED. The court will issue

17

a written order on the motion.

18

ATopTech has filed a motion to seal certain exhibits and declarations related to its

19

opposition to the motion for sanctions. [Docket No. 283.] Specifically, ATopTech moves to seal

20

Exhibit A to the Declaration of Henry Chang, which is a copy of a chart that shows all the

21

commands that are available an executable file. ATopTech notes that it “does not claim this chart

22

is confidential, but understands that Synopsys may.” [Docket No. 283-1 at ¶ 3.] Synopsys has not

23

filed a responsive declaration as required by Civil Local Rules 79-5(e)(1) and 79-5(d)(1)(A)

24

establishing that Exhibit A to the Declaration of Henry Chang is sealable. By May 14, 2015,

25

Synopsys shall file either a responsive declaration or a statement of non-opposition to ATopTech’s

26

motion to seal.

27
28

Synopsys moves to seal portions of its reply to its motion for sanctions that refer to the
Declaration of Andrew Kahng. [Docket No. 287.] Synopsys also moves to seal the portions of

1

the Second Sup
e
pplemental Declaration of Martin W
D
o
Walker that re to inform
efer
mation previ
iously

2

ma
arked “HIGH
HLY CONFI
IDENTIAL—
—ATTORNE
EYS’ EYES ONLY” by ATopTech. Synopsys
S
y

3

doe not conten that eithe of these do
es
nd
er
ocuments co ntains mater
rials that Syn
nopsys has d
designated as
s

4

con
nfidential, bu rather notes that it has filed its mo
ut
s
otion to seal to give ATo
opTech “noti of its
ice

5

bur
rden to estab
blish that the material de
e
esignated con
nfidential so
olely by ATo
opTech is pro
operly

6

sea
alable.” [Do
ocket No. 287 at 1]. ATo
7
opTech has n filed a re
not
esponsive de
eclaration as required by
y

7

Civ Local Ru 79-5(e)(1) and 79-5(d)(1)(A) es
vil
ules
stablishing th the relevant portions of the
hat

8

Sec
cond Supple
emental Decl
laration of Martin Walke or the Dec
M
er
claration of A
Andrew Kah are
hng

9

sea
alable. By May 14, 2015 ATopTech shall file e
M
5,
h
either a respo
onsive decla
aration or a s
statement of

10

non
n-opposition to Synopsy motion to seal.
n
ys’s
t

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: May 11 2015
1,
___
__________
___________
__________
________
DO
ONNA M. R
RYU
Un
nited States M
Magistrate Ju
udge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2