Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965-103/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 REPLY IN SUPPORT

OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND (b) CERTAIN

SUPPORTING EXHIBITS (DOC. NO.

461); DIRECTIONS TO DEFENDANT

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

to seal (Doc. No. 461), filed November 20, 2015, by which ATopTech seeks permission to

seal material designated as confidential by plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”), namely,

Exhibits 1, 2, and 5 to the “Declaration of Paul Alexander in Support of Defendant

ATopTech, Inc.’s Reply to Synopsys’ Opposition to ATopTech’s Motion for Summary

Judgment” (“Alexander Declaration”), as well as portions of ATopTech’s reply brief. 

On November 27, 2015, Synopsys filed a responsive declaration in support of

sealing Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Alexander Declaration and portions of the reply brief. 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 Synopsys’s declaration, the Court rules as

follows.

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 699 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

“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 1 and 2 and portions of the reply brief, 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 Exhibit 5, the motion is hereby DENIED, as

Synopsys has not addressed such material in its responsive declaration. ATopTech is

hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record, no later than March 25, 2016, an unredacted

version of Exhibit 5.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2016 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 699 Filed 03/11/16 Page 2 of 2