Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc

Filing 742

ORDER CONSTRUING DEFENDANT ATOPTECH, INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL [ECF NO. 740] AS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; MODIFYING IN PART AND VACATING IN PART ORDER, FILED MAY 16, 2016; DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on May 20, 2016. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Paul Alexander (#49997)
[e-mail]
Martin R. Glick (#40187)
[e-mail]
Sean M. Callagy (#255230)
[e-mail]
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Philip W. Marsh (#276383)
[e-mail]
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
1801 Page Mill Road, Suite 110
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1216
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Denise McKenzie (#193313)
[e-mail]
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
777 South Figueroa Street
Forty-Fourth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
ATOPTECH, INC.

17
18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

21
22

SYNOPSYS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

23
24
25
26
27
28

v.
ATOPTECH, INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. 3:13-cv-02965 MMC (DMR)
CONSTRUING
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
^
DEFENDANT ATOPTECH, INC.’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL [ECF NO. 740] AS MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION; GRANTING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION; MODIFYING IN
PART AND VACATING IN PART ORDER,
FILED MAY 16, 2016; DIRECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ATOPTECH’S ADMIN. MOT. & MOT.
FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
Case No. 3:13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR)

1

By Administrative Motion pursuant to Northern District of California Civil Local Rules 7-9

2

and 9-11, Defendant ATopTech, Inc. (“ATopTech”) has moved to for leave of this Court to file a

3

motion for partial reconsideration of this Court’s May 16, 2016 Order Granting in Part and Denying

4

in Part Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal (1) Portions of Its Motion for Permanent Injunction and

5

(2) Certain Supporting Declarations and Schedules (“Order”) (ECF No. 740). The Court construes
ATopTech's Motion for Leave as its Motion for Reconsideration.
ATopTech indicates it understood no response was due to Synopsys’ multiple motions filed
which included the subject motion to seal,
on April 7, 2016 (ECF Nos. 723, 727, 728 and 729), because the Court had issued an Order denying
^
as premature
the substantive
these motions on April 11, 2016 (ECF No. 732). Upon reviewing the Order, ATopTech promptly
^
^
prepared the Declaration of Henry Chang (“Chang Declaration”), filed in support of its motion,

6
7
8
9
10

which sets forth grounds for sealing certain specifically identified materials filed in connection with

11

Synopsys’ Motion for Permanent Injunction, in compliance with Local Rule 79-5(d) and (e).

12

Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS ATopTech’s Administrative

13

Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part

14

Motion to File Under Seal [ECF No. 740]. The Court hereby modifies its prior Order to provide

15

that the following materials shall be sealed:
13, 14, and 15
Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, of the Declaration of David Blaauw (ECF No. 724);
^
Exhibits 2, 4 and 5 to the Declaration of David Blaauw (ECF Nos. 724-2, 724-4 and 724-5);
10 - 15, 18, 19
Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 20 of the Declaration of James Storer (ECF No. 725);
^
Exhibits 2, 4 and 5 to the Declaration of James Storer (ECF Nos. 725-2, 725-4 and 725-5);

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 to the Declaration of Patrick Michael (ECF Nos. 726-4, 726-5 and 7266); and
The following passages in Synopsys’ Motion for Permanent Injunction, which references the
foregoing materials, specifically: p. 13, lines 14-23 and 26-29; p. 14, lines 9-15.

24
25
26
27

To the extent the Order directs Synopsys to file certain documents in the public record,
the Order is hereby VACATED, and Synopsys is hereby DIRECTED to file in the public
record, no later than May 27, 2016, versions of the Motion for Permanent Injunction, Blaauw
declaration, and Storer declaration, in which, in addition to Synopsys's confidential material,

28
-2-

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ATOPTECH’S ADMIN.
MOT. & MOT. FOR LV. TO FILE MOT. FOR REC. OF ORDER
Case No. 3:13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR)

1
2
3
4

identified in its motion to seal (Dkt. No. 727), ATopTech's confidential material, as
identified herein, likewise is redacted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 20
Dated: __________________, 2016
Hon. Maxine M. Chesney
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ATOPTECH’S ADMIN.
MOT. & MOT. FOR LV. TO FILE MOT. FOR REC. OF ORDER
Case No. 3:13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR)