Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Syntronic AB et al

Filing 108

Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granting 99 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (jcslc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2022)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SYNTRONIC AB, et al.,

Case No. 21-cv-03610-SI (JCS)
ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 99

Defendants.

12

The parties filed a joint discovery letter brief on March 23, 2022, and Defendants

13

Syntronic AB, et al. (collectively, “Syntronic”) filed an administrative motion under Civil Local

14

Rule 79-5(f) to consider whether certain category labels that Plaintiff Cadence Design Systems,

15

Inc. (“Cadence”) considers confidential should be filed under seal. Dkt. 99. Cadence filed a

16

responsive declaration asserting that disclosing that information could reveal propriety aspects of

17

the software it uses, dkt. 103, and Syntronic filed an opposition to sealing it, dkt. 107.

18

As a starting point, the procedure the parties have used is questionable. Local Rule 79-5(f)

19

is appropriate where one party’s filing contains material an opposing party has designated as

20

confidential. Although the material at issue here was included in Syntronic’s portion of the letter

21

brief, that brief was a joint filing by both parties. Going forward, the parties are instructed to

22

collaborate to ensure that motions to seal any future joint filings include all relevant declarations at

23

the time of filing, unless exigent circumstances require the use of Local Rule 79-5(f).

24

Turning to the merits of the sealing motion, Cadence has submitted a declaration that it

25

keeps the details of the programs it uses to monitor for software piracy confidential to avoid

26

potential circumvention, and that the redacted information would disclose categories of

27

information that the software collects. The fact that Syntronic does not understand the meaning of

28

these category names does not prove that others who might wish to misuse that information also

1

would not understand them. Nor do the broad categories of information that Syntronic asserts

2

(without citation) Cadence has publicly disclosed it collects correspond directly to the category

3

names redacted in the joint letter. Without reaching the question of whether Cadence’s declaration

4

is sufficiently specific to establish “compelling reasons” to seal, as would be necessary for a

5

motion more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the Court finds that Cadence has

6

shown “good cause” to seal the redacted portion of the discovery letter brief, and GRANTS the

7

motion to seal on that basis.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

This order is limited to the motion to seal and does not resolve the parties’ discovery
dispute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 5, 2022
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2