Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965-102/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYNOPSYS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ATOPTECH, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C-13-2965 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (a)

PORTIONS OF ITS OPPOSITION TO

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND (b) CERTAIN

SUPPORTING EXHIBITS (DOC. NO.

446); DIRECTIONS TO DEFENDANT

Before the Court is defendant ATopTech, Inc.’s (“ATopTech”) administrative motion

to seal (Doc. No. 446), filed November 13, 2015, by which ATopTech seeks permission to

seal Exhibits 1, 2, 5, 10, 16, 19 - 22, 25, and 27 to the “Declaration of Paul Alexander in

Support of Defendant ATopTech, Inc.’s Opposition to Synopsys’ Motion for Summary

Judgment on ATopTech’s Affirmative Defenses” (“Alexander Declaration”), as well as

portions of ATopTech’s Opposition that reference said exhibits. Exhibits 5, 10, and 27, as

well as related portions of the Opposition have been designated confidential by ATopTech,

whereas Exhibits 1, 2, 16, 19 - 22, and 25, as well as related portions of the Opposition

have been designated as confidential by plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”). 

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

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

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

sought to be filed under seal, or portions thereof, are sealable”). Thereafter, on November

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 698 Filed 03/11/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

20, 2015, Synopsys filed a declaration in support of sealing Exhibits 1, 16, 19 -21, and 25

to the Alexander Declaration. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d)-(e) (providing, where party seeks to

file under seal material designated confidential by another party, designating party must

file, within four days, “a declaration . . . establishing that all of the designated information is

sealable”). Having read and considered the administrative motion and the parties’

respective declarations, the Court rules as follows.

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

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

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

seek sealing only of sealable material.” Id. 

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

Exhibits 5, 10, 16, 19, 20, 21, 25, and 27 to the Alexander Declaration and related portions

of the Opposition, the Court finds good cause has been shown, and, accordingly, the

motion is hereby GRANTED. 

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

Exhibits 2 and 22 to the Alexander Declaration and related portions of the Opposition, the

motion is hereby DENIED, as Synopsys has not addressed such material in its responsive

declaration. 

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

Exhibit 1 to the Alexander Declaration and related portions of the Opposition, the motion is

hereby GRANTED solely as to the estimated market share and otherwise is DENIED. 

ATopTech is hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record, no later than March 25,

2016, (a) unredacted versions of Exhibits 2 and 22, (b) a version of Exhibit 1 redacted as

set forth above, and (c) a version of the Opposition in which references to Exhibits 2 and 22

are not redacted, and references to Exhibit 1 are redacted as set forth above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2016 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 698 Filed 03/11/16 Page 2 of 2