Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc

Filing 314

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL. Motions terminated: 274 192 283 287 .. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 07/02/15. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2015)

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.

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

9
10

Re: Dkt. Nos. 192, 274, 283, 287

ATOPTECH, INC,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Before the court are several motions to seal filed by Synopsys and Defendant ATopTech

14

Inc. [Docket Nos. 192, 274, 283, 287.] These motions to seal were filed in conjunction with joint

15

discovery letters filed by the parties; this order addresses only the motions to seal, which are

16

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

17
18

I.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Civil Local Rule 79-5(b) states that “no document may be filed under seal (i.e., closed to

19

inspection by the public) except pursuant to a court order that authorizes the sealing of the

20

particular document, or portions thereof. A sealing order may issue only upon a request that

21

establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or

22

otherwise entitled to protection under the law (hereinafter referred to as ‘sealable’).” “The request

23

must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil

24

L.R. 79-5(d).” Id. Furthermore, “[r]eference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a

25

party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document,

26

or portions thereof, are sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A).

27
28

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), a party must file under seal a document designated as
confidential by the opposing party or a document containing information so designated by an

1

opposing party. “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the

2

Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that

3

all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). “If the Designating Party does

4

not file a responsive declaration as required by subsection 79-5(e)(1) and the Administrative

5

Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the Submitting Party may file the document in the public

6

record no earlier than 4 days, and no later than 10 days, after the motion is denied.” Civ. L.R. 79-

7

5(e)(2).

8
9

II.

DOCKET NO. 192

In Docket No. 192, Synopsys moves to seal portions of the parties’ December 15, 2014
discovery letter brief (Docket No. 193). Those portions refer to parameters and values found in

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Synopsys’ software. Synopsys has filed the declaration of Synopsys’ senior litigation counsel

12

Shanee Nelson, which states that these parameters and values are highly confidential information.

13

[Docket No. 192-1] at ¶ 4. ATopTech opposes the motion on the basis that Synopsys deposited

14

the information which it seeks to seal with the United States Copyright Office in Synopsys’

15

application for a copyright for the information, which ATopTech claims rendered the information

16

open for public inspection. [Docket No. 195.]

17

In some circumstances, submitting information to the Copyright Office can affect its status

18

as confidential or protected information. For example, one court has held that source code cannot

19

be protected as a trade secret once it has been submitted to the Copyright Office. Kema, Inc. v.

20

Koperwhats, No. C09-1587MMC, 2010 WL 726640, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2010). However,

21

other courts have held that submission of information to the Copyright Office does not necessarily

22

alter the confidentiality status of that information. See, e.g., Commerce Bancorp, LLC v. Hill, No.

23

CIV 08-5628 (RBK/KMW), 2010 WL 2545166, at *23 (D.N.J. June 18, 2010) (denying summary

24

judgment on whether confidentiality provisions of contract could be breached by disclosure of

25

information that had been deposited in the Copyright Office). Recently, in this case, Judge

26

Chesney found that information deposited with the Copyright Office could form the basis of

27

Synopsys’ claim that ATopTech breached the parties’ agreements by improperly copying and

28

using Synopsys’ confidential information. See Docket Nos. 197 at 3 (original order on motion to
2

1

dismiss stating that “any information filed with the Copyright Office is no longer confidential”

2

and dismissing breach of contract claims based on disclosure of that information); 203-3 at 3

3

(Synopsys’ motion for reconsideration of that portion of the motion to dismiss order); 236 at 1

4

(granting motion for reconsideration).

5

Accordingly, because it is not clear that the act of depositing information with the

6

Copyright Office renders that information unsealable pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, the court

7

acts out of an abundance of caution and grants Synopsys’ motion to seal. See Docket No. 34

8

(granting Synopsys’ motion to seal over ATopTech’s objection that the material was not sealable

9

because Synopys had deposited the material with the Copyright Office, and noting that it was
acting “out of an abundance of caution” and explicitly not reaching the merits of Synopsys’ trade

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

secret claim).

12
13
14

III.

DOCKET NO. 274

Synopsys moves to seal portions of its motion for sanctions and the accompanying
declarations of Patrick Michael and Martin Walker.

15
16

Designation #

Document

Portions

17

1

Motion for Sanctions

9:5, 9:6, 9:9-11

18

2

Michael Decl.

5:6-7

19

3

Michael Decl. Exs. 2, 3, 4

Entire document

20

4

Michael Decl. Ex. 5

Entire document

21

5

Michael Decl. Ex. 6 (Walker Decl.)

¶¶ 11, 33, 37

22

6

Walker Decl. Ex. B.

Entire document

23

7

Supplemental Walker Decl.

Portions

24
25

The parties agree that Designations #3-4 contain confidential information, public

26

disclosure of which could harm ATopTech. Accordingly, Synopsys’s motion to seal these

27

materials is granted.

28

With respect to Designation #7, ATopTech notes that references to the name of
3

1

ATopTech’s project tracking software “JIRA” are not confidential, but that certain portions of

2

Designation #7 refer to details about the JIRA database that are confidential. See Docket No. 293

3

at ¶ 11 (noting specific numbers appearing in portions of Designation #7 that are confidential).

4

Synopsys does not dispute ATopTech’s characterization of which portions of Designation #7

5

should be sealed. Accordingly, Synopsys’s motion to seal is granted with respect to the specific

6

portions of Designation #7 described by ATopTech in Docket No. 293 as being sealable, but

7

otherwise denied.

8

With respect to the remaining Designations (#1-2 and 5-6), ATopTech raises the same

9

objection: the portions that Synopsys seeks to file under seal appear to be “common command
terms” and there is therefore no basis for claiming the confidentiality of these terms. Docket No.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

293 at ¶¶ 5-6, 9-10. Synopsys responds to ATopTech’s objection by arguing that ATopTech’s

12

objection lacks a proper evidentiary foundation. See Docket No. 300. It is Synopsys’ burden, not

13

ATopTech’s, to show that the material Synopsys seeks to file under seal is actually sealable. See

14

Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (“A sealing order may issue only upon a request that establishes that the

15

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

16

protection under the law”); Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir.

17

2006) (citation and formatting omitted) (“[A] particularized showing under the ‘good cause’

18

standard of Rule 26(c) will suffice to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material

19

attached to non-dispositive motions.”). Synopsys’s declaration in support of its motion to seal

20

states that the materials it seeks to seal contains “Synopsys proprietary input formats from

21

Synopsys’s software products and technical documentation that provide Synopsys with a technical

22

and economic advantage over competitors,” and refers to to earlier-filed declarations from a

23

Synopsys employee explaining in greater detail why Synopsys contends these input formats are

24

sealable. See Docket No. 274 at 3 (referring to Docket Nos. 25-1 and 222-1). The court finds that

25

Synopsys has met its burden of showing, for purposes of this motion to seal, that the materials in

26

Designations #1-2 and 5-6 are sealable and therefore grants the motion to seal to this extent.

27

However, the court notes the nature of the input formats is at issue in Synopsys’ copyright claim,

28

and the court’s order granting Synopsys to seal references to the disputed input formats has no
4

1

bearing on the merits of that claim.

2
3
4

IV.

DOCKET NO. 283

ATopTech moves to seal certain exhibits and declarations related to its opposition to the
motion for sanctions. [Docket No. 283.]
ATopTech moves to seal Exhibit A to the Declaration of Henry Chang, which is a copy of

6

a chart that shows all the commands that are available an executable file. ATopTech notes that it

7

“does not claim this chart is confidential, but understands that Synopsys may.” [Docket No. 283-1

8

at ¶ 3.] Synopsys has filed a responsive declaration as required by Civil Local Rules 79-5(e)(1)

9

and 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that Exhibit A to the declaration of Henry Chang is sealable.

10

[Docket No. 299.] Accordingly, ATopTech’s motion to seal is granted with respect to this

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

exhibit.

12

ATopTech also moves to seal the Declaration of Andrew Kahng and Exhibit A to that

13

Declaration. ATopTech has sufficiently explained that these materials contain confidential and

14

sensitive information about ATopTech’s software, public disclosure of which would harm

15

ATopTech’s competitive interest. [Docket No. 283-1 at 4-5.] Accordingly, ATopTech’s motion

16

to seal is granted with respect to the Declaration of Andrew Kahng and Exhibit A to that

17

Declaration.

18
19

V.

DOCKET NO. 287

Synopsys moves to seal portions of its reply to its motion for sanctions. These portions

20

refer to the Declaration of Andrew Kahng, which is attached to ATopTech’s opposition to the

21

motion for sanctions and which ATopTech has sought to file under seal. Synopsys also moves to

22

seal the portions of the Second Supplemental Declaration of Martin Walker that refer to

23

information previously marked “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” by

24

ATopTech.

25

Synopsys does not contend that either of these documents contains materials that Synopsys

26

has designated as confidential, but rather notes that it has filed its motion to seal to give

27

ATopTech “notice of its burden to establish that the material designated confidential solely by

28

ATopTech is properly sealable.” [Docket No. 287 at 1].
5

1

ATopT
Tech has filed a responsiv declaratio as require by Civil L
d
ve
on
ed
Local Rules 7
79-5(e)(1)

2

and 79-5(d)(1)(A). [Docke No. 301.] In the decla
d
et
aration, ATo
opTech states that it does not
s

3

con
ntend that th redacted portions of th reply brie and the Se
he
p
he
ef
econd Supple
emental Dec
claration of

4

Ma
artin Walker are confiden
r
ntial and sea
alable. Acco
ordingly, Syn
nopsys’s req
quest to file u
under seal

5

tho portions is denied.
ose

6
7

No furt
ther action is required for Docket No 192 and 2
s
os.
283. For Do
ocket Nos. 27 and 287,
74

8

Syn
nopsys shall file unredac or partia unredac
l
cted
ally
cted versions of the docu
s
uments sough to be
ht

9

sea within 7 days of this order. See Civ. L.R. 79
aled
s
9-5(f).

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.

12
13
14
15

Da
ated: July 2, 2015
2
___
__________
___________
__________
________
Donna M. Ryu
Un
nited States M
Magistrate J
Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6