Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc

Filing 343

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL To the extent Synopsys seeks to file Exhibit O under seal, the motion is granted and Exhibit O to the Michael Declaration shall remain under seal. To the extent Synopsys seeks to file Exhibits C - K and P - R to the Michael Declaration, as well as portions of the Motion to Amend, under seal, themotions are denied. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 7, 2015. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/13/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
SYNOPSYS, INC.,

No. C 13-2965 MMC

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Plaintiff,
11

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTIONS FOR
LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL

v.
12
ATOPTECH, INC.,
13
Defendant.
/

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Before the Court are two administrative motions for leave to file documents under
seal, each filed August 6, 2015, by plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”), pursuant to Civil
Local Rule 79-5. By its first administrative motion, Synopsys seeks leave to file under seal
Exhibits C - K and O - R to the Declaration of Patrick Michael (“Michael Declaration”); by its
second administrative motion, Synopsys seeks to file under seal the portions of Synopsys’
Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (“Motion to Amend”) that cite to
Exhibits C - K and P - R.
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”. See Civil L.R. 79-5(a).
As to Exhibit O, Synopsys has filed a declaration showing such exhibit pertains to
Synopsys’ proprietary, commercially sensitive and confidential information, specifically,
certain commands that are found in Synopsys’ software products and technical
documentation. Accordingly, as to Exhibit O, the Court finds good cause for the relief

1

requested, and, to the extent Synopsys seeks to file Exhibit O under seal, the motion is

2

GRANTED and Exhibit O to the Michael Declaration shall remain under seal.

3

As to Exhibits C - K and P - R, as well as the specified portions of the Motion to

4

Amend, defendant ATopTech, Inc. (“ATopTech”) bears the burden of establishing the

5

material is sealable, as Synopsys seeks to file such material under seal solely on the

6

ground it has been designated confidential by ATopTech. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d)-(e)

7

(providing, where party seeks to file under seal material designated as confidential by

8

another party, such party shall file motion for sealing order, after which designating party

9

must file, within 4 days, “declaration . . . establishing that all of the designated information is

10

sealable”). To date, ATopTech has not filed its responsive declaration in support of

11

sealing. Accordingly, to the extent Synopsys seeks to file such material under seal, the

12

motions are DENIED, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to file Exhibits C - K and P - R to the

13

Michael Declaration, as well as the entirety of the Motion to Amend, in the public record.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
Dated: August 13, 2015
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2