Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc

Filing 351

ORDER RE: RESPONSIVE DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 25, 2015. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2015)

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 RE: RESPONSIVE
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 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

On August 6, 2015, plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”) filed two administrative
motions for leave to file under seal various documents, including documents designated
confidential by defendant ATopTech, Inc. (“ATopTech”). Pursuant to the local rules of this
district, ATopTech bears the burden of demonstrating the propriety of sealing any material
so designated, and was required to make such showing no later than August 11, 2015.
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”).
As of August 13, 2015, ATopTech had not filed a declaration in support of sealing,
and, consequently, the Court denied the motions to the extent such motions sought leave
to file under seal documents designated confidential by ATopTech. Specifically, the Court
directed the Clerk to file in the public record exhibits C - K and P - R to the Declaration of
Patrick Michael filed in support of Synopsys’ motion for leave to file a Second Amended

1

Complaint, as well as the portions of such motion that cite to those exhibits. (See Order,

2

filed Aug. 13, 2015.) Thereafter, on August 20, 2015, ATopTech filed a responsive

3

declaration by its counsel, asserting all said material is sealable. (See Declaration of Paul

4

Alexander (“Alexander Declaration”).) Having read and considered the declaration, the

5

Court hereby rules as follows.

6

In said declaration, Alexander, citing Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), states it was and is his

7

understanding that ATopTech’s responsive declaration was not due until August 20, 2015,

8

which date, the Court notes is fourteen days, not the requisite four days, after Synopsys

9

filed its administrative motions for leave to file under seal. See Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1)

10

(requiring designating parting to file responsive declaration “within 4 days of the filing of the

11

[opposing party’s] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal”). Nevertheless, even

12

assuming ATopTech had timely filed its responsive declaration, such request “must be

13

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material,” see Civil L.R. 79-5(b), and

14

ATopTech’s submission lacks the necessary “tailoring.” Rather, Alexander states, on

15

information and belief, that “some, but not all, of the documents contained in Exhibits C - K

16

and P - R contain confidential information.” (See Alexander Declaration ¶ 3.)

17

In light of the above, AtopTech’s request to consider the Alexander Declaration is

18

granted, but the Court’s order denying sealing of the above-referenced exhibits remains

19

unchanged, without prejudice to ATopTech’s filing a declaration that meets the

20

requirements of Rule 79-5(a).

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
Dated: August 25, 2015
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2