Dynetix Design Solutions, Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc.

Filing 365

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting 190 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 197 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and deny ing in part 225 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 258 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 263 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 267 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 272 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 276 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 280 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 291 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granti ng 295 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 307 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 309 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 313 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 321 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

DYNETIX DESIGN SOLUTIONS INC., a
California corporation,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
)
SYNOPSYS INC., a Delaware corporation, and )
DOES 1-50,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: C 11-CV-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
SYNOPSYS’S AND DYNETIX’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
(Re: Docket Nos. 190, 197, 225, 258, 263,
267, 272, 276, 280, 291, 295, 307, 309,
313, 321)

Before the court are numerous administrative motions to seal, filed by both Plaintiff,

18
19

Dynetix Design Solutions Inc. (“Dynetix”) and Defendant Synopsys Inc. (“Synopsys”). The

20

parties move to seal both their own confidential information as well as information that was

21

produced by other parties under the designations “Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only”

22

and “Highly Confidential Source Code” pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective order.1

23
24
25
26
27
1

28

See Docket No. 39.

1
Case No.: C 11-CV-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

I.

1

LEGAL STANDARD

2

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and

3

documents, including judicial records and documents.’”2 Accordingly, when considering a sealing

4

request, “a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.”3 Parties seeking to seal

5

judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption

6
7
8

with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies
favoring disclosure.4
Records attached to nondispositive motions, however, are not subject to the strong

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

presumption of access.5 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions “are often

11

unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal

12

must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).6 As with dispositive motions, the

13

standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing”7 that “specific

14

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.8 “[B]road allegations of harm,

15
16

unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” will not suffice.9

17

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

18

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civil Local Rule 79-5. The rule allows

19

sealing orders only where the parties have “establishe[d] that the document or portions thereof is

20
2

Kamakana v. City and Cnty of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).

3

Id.

4

Id. at 1178-79.

5

Id. at 1180.

6

Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

7

Id.

8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

9

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003).

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No.: C 11-CV-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1
2

privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.”10 The
parties must “narrowly tailor” their requests only to sealable material.11
II.

3
4
5
6

DISCUSSION

The court has considered each of the documents the parties have designated for sealing and,
as articulated in the table below, determined which documents may remain under seal or redacted
and which documents must be unsealed.

7
8

DN
REQUEST
190 Dynetix’s Response to
Evidentiary Objections

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

197 Exhibits to
Administrative Motion
to Seal Synopsys’
Supplemental
Opposition to
Dynetix’s Motion for
Summary Judgment
and Attached Exhibits

14

26

225 Synopsys’
Supplemental
Opposition to
Dynetix’s Motion to
Dismiss or,
Alternatively, for
Summary Judgment of
Non-infringement,
Supplemental Walker
Declaration,
Supplemental Yu
Declaration
258 Dynetix’s Motion for
Leave to Supplement
its Infringement
Contentions, For
Reconsideration of a
Prior Ruling, and for
Modification of the
Protective Order
Li Declaration in
Support of Dynetix’s
Motion for Leave to

27

10
11

Synopsys’ request on behalf of Dynetix to seal Exhibit B is
GRANTED because it comprises Dynetix’s proprietary source
code alone.
Synopsys’ request to seal Exhibit C is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to refilling a narrowly-tailored request. The
majority of the deposition transcript is not sealable.
This request mirrors the previous request to seal the exhibits
associated with this motion, and so it is GRANTED-IN-PART
under the same reasoning.

Civ. L.R. 79-5.

28

RESULT
Dynetix’s request on behalf of Synopsys to seal portions of this
document referencing Synopsys’ source code is GRANTED.
Proprietary source code is presumed to be sealable.
Synopsys’ request on behalf of Dynetix to seal Exhibit A is
DENIED. It is not narrowly tailored to protect only proprietary
source code and other proprietary information.

Id.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Dynetix’s request on behalf of Synopsys is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to refilling a narrowly-tailored request. Portions
referencing the mere existence of a licensing agreement, file, or
feature are not sealable.

Synopsys’ request to file under seal portions referencing the
existence of a licensing agreement is DENIED. The mere
existence of a licensing agreement, and the identity of the parties

3
Case No.: C 11-CV-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Supplement its
Infringement
Contentions, For
Reconsideration of a
Prior Ruling, and for
Modification of the
Protective Order
Exhibit E of Li
Declaration in Support
of Dynetix’s Motion
for Leave to
Supplement its
Infringement
Contentions, For
Reconsideration of a
Prior Ruling, and for
Modification of the
Protective Order
263 Exhibits 22-29 and 3133 in Support of
Declaration of J. James
Li in Support of
Dynetix’s Third
Motion to Compel

13
14

16

18

The request to seal Ex. 29 is GRANTED. This information may
be used by competitors to solicit Synopsys customers and
develop competing features.

20
21

25
26
27
28

The request to seal Ex. 24 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
These redactions mostly discuss Synopsys’ employee duties. To
the extent that Synopsys’ collaboration with Nvidia is
protectable, Synopsys may refile a narrowly-tailored request.

The request to seal Ex. 28, 31, 32, and 33 is GRANTED. They
contain private data about employees, which is protectable.

19

24

The request to seal Ex. 22 and 23 is DENIED. The redactions
discuss certain employees’ management roles regarding VCS,
information that is not sealable.

The request to seal Ex. 27 is DENIED. Synopsys provides no
valid justification for sealing the purchase agreement, beyond
what has already been blacked out.

17

23

The request to seal Dynetix’s proposed amended infringement
contentions is DENIED. Neither party offers any justification as
to why this should be sealed. The redactions merely reference
Partition Compile and Remote VCS and do not appear to contain
confidential information.

The request to seal Ex. 25 and 26 is GRANTED. Ex. 25
concerns a confidential agreement between Synopsys and Intel
for the development of highly secret features.

15

22

involved, is not protectable. The request to seal portions
referencing Partition Compile also is DENIED. As these
portions only reference Partition Compile and its function
generally, without revealing the actual source code, they may not
be redacted. Synopsys offers no reason to seal these documents
and in fact references Partition Compile in its papers.

Amin Declaration in
Support of Dynetix’s
Third Motion to
Compel
Dynetix’s Third
Motion to Compel
267 Exhibit J to Yu
Declaration in Support
of Synopsys’
Opposition to
Dynetix’s
Administrative Motion

The request to seal portions of the declaration is GRANTED. It
describes license keys and executables in great detail and
associated scripts, which are highly confidential.
For the reasons stated above, the request to seal portions of
Dynetix’s third motion to compel referencing the above exhibits
is GRANTED.
Synopsys’ request to seal the Intel corporate deposition is
GRANTED. Synopsys has demonstrated that the information is
confidential and could be used to undermine Synopsys’
relationship with Intel.

4
Case No.: C 11-CV-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1
2

272

3
4
5
6
7
8

276

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

280

14
15
16

291

17
18
19
20

295

21
22
23

307

24
25
26
27
28

309

to Extend Fact
Discovery Cutoff
Exhibits C and I to Yu
Declaration in Support
of Synopsys’
Opposition to
Dynetix’s Motion for
Leave to Supplement
Infringement
Contentions, for
Reconsideration of a
Prior Ruling, and for
Modification of the
Protective Order
Dynetix’s Reply and Li
Declaration in Support
of its Motion for Leave
to Supplement its
Infringement
Contentions, For
Reconsideration of a
Prior Ruling, and for
Modification of the
Protective Order
Exhibits D and J to Yu
Declaration in Support
of Synopsys’
Opposition to
Dynetix’s Third
Motion to Compel
Exhibit G of Yu
Declaration in Support
of Synopsys’ Motion
for Protective Order
Exhibit F of Yu
Declaration in Support
of Synopsys’ Motion
for Protective Order
Nonparty Intel’s
Opposition to
Dynetix’s Third
Motion to Compel
Marks and Maidment
Declarations in Support
of Intel’s Opposition
Dynetix’s Reply in
Support of its Third
Motion to Compel
Dynetix’s Opposition
to Synopsys’ Motion
for Protective Order
Exhibits 1-2, 7

Synopsys’ request to seal exhibit C is GRANTED. The exhibit
contains proprietary source code for Partition Compile, which is
presumed to be sealable.
Synopsys’ request to seal Exhibit I is GRANTED. Most of the
deposition concerns confidential product information and
Synopsys’ relationship with Intel.

Dynetix’s request on behalf of Synopsys is GRANTED. The
redacted portions reference documents that have been sealed
previously by the court.

Synopsys’ request to seal Exhibit D is GRANTED. It contains
customer information Synopsys is bound to keep confidential.
Synopsys’ request to seal Exhibit J is GRANTED. This
information could be used to the detriment of Synopsys’
relationship with its customers.
Synopsys’ request to seal Exhibit G is GRANTED. The exhibit
contains detailed and confidential financial information that
could be used against Synopsys.
Synopsys’ request to seal Exhibit F is GRANTED. It contains a
customer list, disclosure of which may be prejudicial to
Synopsys’ ability to compete in the marketplace.
The motion to seal is GRANTED because the request is
narrowly tailored to protect confidential information that could
be used to solicit Synopsys’ customers.
The motion to seal is GRANTED under the same reasoning as
above.
Dynetix’s request on behalf of Synopsys is DENIED. Synopsys
did not file a declaration supporting the motion to seal within 7
days pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5.
Dynetix’s request on behalf of Synopsys is GRANTED. The
redacted portions reference documents sealed below.
The request to seal these exhibits is GRANTED. The exhibits
include internal emails that discuss confidential design, function,
and performance of the VCS product, which could be used by
competitors.

5
Case No.: C 11-CV-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

1
2

Exhibit 3
Exhibits 4, 6, 8

3

Exhibit 5

4

Exhibit 9

5
6

Exhibit 10

7

Exhibit 11

8

Exhibit 12

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

313 Dynetix’s Letter Brief
321 Exhibits C and D of Li
Declaration in Support
of Dynetix’s Second
Motion to Compel
Dynetix’s Second
Motion to Compel
Exhibit W of Yu
Declaration in Support
of Synopsys’
Opposition of
Dynetix’s Second
Motion to Compel
Dynetix’s Reply in
Support of Second
Motion to Compel

The request to seal is GRANTED. The presentation contains
information that could be used to solicit Synopsys’ customers.
The request to seal is GRANTED. The presentations discuss
Synopsys’ competitive business strategy, which could harm
Synopsys if disclosed.
The request to seal is GRANTED. The exhibit is an internal
development page with confidential and proprietary information.
The request to seal is GRANTED. The document is an internal
analysis of financial information which is kept confidential.
Disclosure of this document could affect pricing in the market.
The request to seal is GRANTED. The personal performance
review contains sensitive personal information.
The request to seal is GRANTED. The document describes the
development process of a product that if disclosed would harm
Synopsys.
The request to seal is GRANTED. The exhibit is a functional
specification for a parallel version of VCS, with confidential
proprietary information.
The request to seal portions of the letter brief regarding
Synopsys’ source code is GRANTED.
The request to seal portions of these exhibits is GRANTED. The
documents contain methods that Synopsys use to develop certain
product features, which could aid competitors to avoid certain
pitfalls and develop competing products more quickly than they
otherwise would have.
The request to seal narrowly-tailored portions of the motion is
GRANTED. The documents contain information that could help
competitors develop competing products.
The motion to seal Exhibit W is GRANTED. The technical
manual is only distributed to customers pursuant to
confidentiality provisions, and public disclosure of this
information could be used by competitors to develop similar
features.
The motion to seal portions of Dynetix’s reply is GRANTED.
The request is narrowly-tailored to include only sealable
information.

20
21

The court orders the parties to file documents that comply with the court’s determinations

22

above within seven days. Chambers copies do not need to be filed.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: May 23, 2013

25
26
27

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

28
6
Case No.: C 11-CV-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTIONS TO SEAL