Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc

Filing 373

ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. Defendant's administrative motion to file portions of its opposition and exhibits B, D, E, F, and G to the supporting declaration is granted. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on September 15, 2015. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SYNOPSYS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

No. C 13-2965
ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT

v.
ATOPTECH, INC.,
Defendant.
/

Before the Court is defendant ATopTech, Inc.’s (“ATopTech”) “Administrative Motion
for Leave to File Documents Under Seal,” filed August 20, 2015, pursuant to Civil Local
Rule 79-5, by which ATopTech seeks to seal portions of its opposition to Synopsys, Inc.’s
(“Synopsys”) “Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint,” as well as the entirety
of exhibits B, D, E, F, and G to the supporting declaration of Paul Alexander.
Certain portions of the material sought to be sealed have been designated
confidential by ATopTech, and ATopTech has submitted a declaration in support thereof.
See Civil L. R. 79-5(d) (providing motion to file document under seal must be
“accompanied by . . . [a] declaration establishing that the document sought to be filed under
seal, or portions thereof, are sealable”). Other portions have been so designated by
Synopsys, and, on August 24, 2015, Synopsys filed its responsive declaration in support of

1

sealing. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d)-(e) (providing, where party seeks to file under seal material

2

designated confidential by another party, designating party must file, within four days, “a

3

declaration . . . establishing that all of the designated information is sealable”).

4

Having read and considered the administrative motion and the parties’ respective

5

declarations, the Court finds good cause has been shown for the relief requested and,

6

accordingly, ATopTech’s administrative motion to seal is hereby GRANTED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

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

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2