Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc

Filing 701

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF ITS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 462); DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 14, 2016. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2016)

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

SYNOPSYS, INC.,

11
12
13
14

No. C-13-2965 MMC

Plaintiff,
v.
ATOPTECH, INC.,
Defendant.

/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
PORTIONS OF ITS REPLY BRIEF IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 462);
DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF

15
16

Before the Court is plaintiff Synopsys, Inc.’s (“Synopsys”) administrative motion to

17

seal (Doc. No. 462), filed November 20, 2015, by which Synopsys seeks permission to seal

18

portions of its reply brief in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. Part of that

19

material has been designated confidential by Synopsys, whereas other parts have been

20

designated confidential by defendant ATopTech, Inc. (“ATopTech”).

21

Concurrently with the instant motion, Synopsys filed a declaration in support of

22

sealing its confidential material . See Civil L. R. 79-5(d) (providing motion to file document

23

under seal must be “accompanied by . . . [a] declaration establishing that the document

24

sought to be filed under seal, or portions thereof, are sealable”). Pursuant to the Local

25

Rules of this district, ATopTech was required to file by November 24, 2015, a responsive

26

declaration in support of sealing the material it has designated as confidential. See Civil

27

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

28

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

1

. establishing that all of the designated information is sealable”). To date, no such

2

declaration has been filed. Having read and considered the administrative motion and

3

Synopsys’s declaration, the Court rules as follows.

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

seek sealing only of sealable material.” Id.

8
9

To the extent the administrative motion seeks permission to seal Synopsys’s
confidential information in the reply brief, specifically, lines seventeen and nineteen on

10

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

11

hereby GRANTED.

12

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

13

reply brief designated confidential by ATopTech, the motion is hereby DENIED, as

14

ATopTech has not shown such material is confidential. Synopsys is hereby DIRECTED to

15

file in the public record, no later than March 25, 2016, a version of the reply brief in which

16

only lines seventeen and nineteen on page eleven are redacted.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 14, 2016
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2