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)

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 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

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?