Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc

Filing 521

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT AND EXHIBITS 3-6 IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DIRECTIONS TO DEFENDANT. The Court defers ruling on the administrative motion to the extent it seeks t o seal Exhibits 3 and 4 and related portions of the opposition, pending Synopsys's filing, by January 29, 2016, a version of each said exhibit in which the redactions are limited to sealable material. To the extent the motion seeks to seal Exhib its 5 and 6 and related portions of the opposition, the motion is denied, and ATopTech is directed to file said exhibits in the public record no later than January 29, 2016. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 22, 2016. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9
10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

SYNOPSYS, INC.,

14
15
16
17
18

No. C 13-2965 MMC

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
TO SEAL PORTIONS OF
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT AND
EXHIBITS 3 – 6 IN SUPPORT
THEREOF; DIRECTIONS TO
DEFENDANT

v.
ATOPTECH, INC.,
Defendant.
/

19
20

Before the Court is defendant ATopTech, Inc.’s (“ATopTech”) Administrative Motion

21

to Seal, filed January 15, 2016, by which ATopTech seeks permission to seal material

22

designated confidential by plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”), namely, portions of

23

ATopTech’s opposition to Synopsys’s “Motion for Leave (A) to File Supplemental Complaint

24

and (B) to File Motion for Reconsideration” (hereinafter, “Motion to Supplement”), as well

25

as the entirety of Exhibits 3 – 6 to the Supporting Declaration of Paul Alexander

26

(“Alexander Declaration”). On January 19, 2016, Synopsys filed a responsive declaration

27

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

28

seal material designated confidential by another party, such party shall file motion for
sealing order, after which designating party must file, within four days, “declaration . . .

1

establishing that all of the designated information is sealable”). Having read and

2

considered the administrative motion and Synopsys’s responsive declaration, the Court

3

hereby rules as follows.
“A sealing order may issue only upon a request that establishes that the document,

4
5

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

6

protection under the law.” See Civil L.R. 79-5(a). “The request must be narrowly tailored

7

to seek sealing only of sealable material.” See id.
According to Synopsys’s responsive declaration, Exhibit 3 is sealable because it

8
9

contains “certain commands, options, and other input or output formats that are found in

10

Synopsys’ software products and technical documentation” (see Nelson Decl. 1:25-28),

11

and Exhibit 4 is sealable because it contains “the identity and number of Synopsys’

12

customers, internal accounting procedures and amounts, market share of Synopsys

13

products, internal financial projections and methodologies, and sales strategies” (see

14

Nelson Decl. 2:23-25). Although the Court agrees that Exhibits 3 and 4 contain sealable

15

material, those exhibits also appear to contain substantial amounts of material that is not

16

sealable.
In lieu of denial, the Court hereby DEFERS ruling on the administrative motion to the

17
18

extent it seeks to seal Exhibits 3 and 4 and related portions of the opposition, pending

19

Synopsys’s filing, by January 29, 2016, a version of each said exhibit in which the

20

redactions are limited to sealable material. Pending the Court’s ruling on Synopsys’s

21

supplemental response, Exhibits 3 and 4 and the unredacted opposition will remain under

22

seal.

23

Contrary to Synopsys’s assertion that the entirety of Exhibit 5 to the Alexander

24

Declaration is sealable, said exhibit appears to contain no material of a confidential nature.

25

Accordingly, to the extent the administrative motion seeks to seal Exhibit 5 and related

26

portions of the opposition, the motion is hereby DENIED.

27
28

Synopsys fails to address Exhibit 6 to the Alexander Declaration in its responsive
declaration. Accordingly, to the extent the administrative motion seeks to seal said exhibit
2

1
2
3
4
5

related portions of the opposition, the motion is hereby DENIED.
ATopTech is hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record, no later than January 29,
2016, Exhibits 5 and 6 to the Alexander Declaration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 22, 2016
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3