Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc

Filing 682

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (a) PORTIONS OF ITS OPPOSITIONS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND (b) CERTAIN SUPPORTING EXHIBITS (DOC. NO. 577). Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 9, 2016. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 SYNOPSYS, INC., Plaintiff, 12 13 14 No. C-13-2965 MMC v. ATOPTECH, INC., Defendant. 15 / ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (a) PORTIONS OF ITS OPPOSITIONS TO DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND (b) CERTAIN SUPPORTING EXHIBITS (DOC. NO. 577) 16 17 Before the Court is plaintiff Synopsys, Inc.’s (“Synopsys”) administrative motion to 18 seal (Doc. No. 577), filed February 2, 2016, by which Synopsys seeks permission to seal 19 the entirety of Exhibits 23 - 26, 28 - 31, and 33 - 65 to the Declaration of Patrick T. Michael 20 (“Michael Declaration”), filed February 2, 2016, as well as portions of Synopsys’s 21 Oppositions to defendant ATopTech, Inc.’s (“ATopTech”) Motions in Limine Nos. 1, 2, 4, 22 and 5. 23 Exhibits 23, 31, 63, and 64 have been designated confidential by Synopsys; Exhibits 24 24, 29, 30, 34 - 44, and 46 - 62, as well as portions the Oppositions to Motions in Limine 25 Nos. 4 and 5, have been designated confidential by ATopTech. Exhibits 25, 26, 28, 33, 45, 26 and 65, as well as portions of the Oppositions to Motions in Limine Nos. 1 and 2, have 27 been designated confidential by both parties. On February 2, 2016, Synopsys filed a 28 declaration in support of sealing. See Civil L. R. 79-5(d) (providing motion to file document 1 under seal must be “accompanied by . . . [a] declaration establishing that the document 2 sought to be filed under seal, or portions thereof, are sealable”). Pursuant to the Local 3 Rules of this district, ATopTech was required to file by February 8, 2016, a responsive 4 declaration in support of sealing the material it has designated as confidential. See Civil 5 L.R. 79-5(d)-(e) (providing, where party seeks to file under seal material designated 6 confidential by another party, designating party must file, within four days, “a declaration . . 7 . establishing that all of the designated information is sealable”). To date, no such 8 declaration has been filed. Having read and considered the administrative motion and 9 Synopsys’s declaration, the Court rules as follows. 10 “A sealing order may issue only upon a request that establishes that the document, 11 or portions thereof, is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to 12 protection under the law.” Civil L.R. 79-5(a). “The request must be narrowly tailored to 13 seek sealing only of sealable material.” Id. 14 To the extent the administrative motion seeks permission to seal the entirety of 15 Exhibits 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 45, 63, 64, and 65, as well as portions of the Oppositions to 16 ATopTech’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1 and 2, the Court finds good cause has been shown, 17 and, accordingly, the motion is hereby GRANTED. Synopsys is hereby DIRECTED to file 18 in the public record, no later than March 18, 2016, versions of its Oppositions to Motions in 19 Limine Nos. 1 and 2 in which only Synopsys’s confidential material is redacted. 20 To the extent the administrative motion seeks permission to seal the entirety of 21 Exhibits 24, 29, 30, 33 - 44, and 46 - 62 to the Michael Declaration and portions of the 22 Oppositions to ATopTech’s Motions in Limine Nos. 4 and 5, the motion is hereby DENIED, 23 as neither party has shown said material is sealable. Synopsys is hereby DIRECTED to file 24 in the public record, no later than March 18, 2016, unredacted versions of said exhibits and 25 oppositions. 26 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 9, 2016 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?