Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc

Filing 692

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (a) PORTIONS OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 AND (b) CERTAIN SUPPORTING EXHIBITS (DOC. NO. 403); DIRECTIONS TO DEFENDANT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 10, 2016. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2016)

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
15

v.
ATOPTECH, INC.,
Defendant.

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

No. C-13-2965 MMC

/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (a)
PORTIONS OF ITS OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1
AND (b) CERTAIN SUPPORTING
EXHIBITS (DOC. NO. 403); DIRECTIONS
TO DEFENDANT

Before the Court is defendant ATopTech, Inc.’s (“ATopTech”) administrative motion
to seal (Doc. No. 403), filed October 31, 2015, by which ATopTech seeks permission to
seal the entirety of Exhibits B - F to the “Declaration of Paul Alexander in Support of
Defendant ATopTech, Inc.’s Opposition to Synopsys’ Motion in Limine No. 1 to Limit
Evidence of ‘Non-Infringing Alternative’” (“Alexander Declaration”), as well as portions of
ATopTech’s Opposition that reference said exhibits. Exhibit D and related portions of the
Opposition have been designated confidential by both parties; Exhibit E and related
portions of the Opposition have been designated confidential by ATopTech; and Exhibits B,
C, and F and related portions of the Opposition have been designated confidential by
plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”).
Concurrently with the instant motion, ATopTech filed a declaration in support of
sealing Exhibits D and E to the Alexander Declaration. See Civil L. R. 79-5(d) (providing

1

motion to file document under seal must be “accompanied by . . . [a] declaration

2

establishing that the document sought to be filed under seal, or portions thereof, are

3

sealable”). Thereafter, on November 6, 2015, Synopsys filed a responsive declaration in

4

support of sealing Exhibit D to the Alexander Declaration. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d)-(e)

5

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

6

party, designating party must file, within four days, “a declaration . . . establishing that all of

7

the designated information is sealable”). Having read and considered the administrative

8

motion and the parties’ respective declarations, the Court rules as follows.

9

“A sealing order may issue only upon a request that establishes that the document,

10

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

11

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

12

seek sealing only of sealable material.” Id.

13

To the extent the administrative motion seeks permission to seal the entirety of

14

Exhibits D and E to the Alexander Declaration, as well as related portions of the

15

Opposition, the Court finds good cause has been shown, and, accordingly, the motion is

16

hereby GRANTED.

17

To the extent the administrative motion seeks permission to seal the entirety of

18

Exhibits B, C, and F, as well as related portions of the Opposition, the motion is hereby

19

DENIED, as Synopsys has not addressed such material in its responsive declaration.

20

ATopTech is hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record, no later than March 18, 2016,

21

unredacted versions of Exhibits B, C, and F and a version of the Opposition in which only

22

references to Exhibits D and E are redacted.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 10, 2016
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2