Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03923/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03923-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent 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.

MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-04-3923 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART SYNOPSYS’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL RELATING

TO OPPOSITION TO MAGMA’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docket No. 240)

Before the Court is the administrative motion filed June 30, 2005 by plaintiff

Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”) to file under seal certain documents relating to its opposition to

defendant Magma Design Automation, Inc.’s (“Magma”) motion for summary judgment as

to the second through sixth causes of action in the Second Amended Complaint. No

response to the motion has been filed by Magma.

Synopsys has shown good cause for filing the requested portions of the following

documents under seal: Synopsys’s opposition to Magma’s motion for summary judgment;

the Declaration of Michael N. Edelman (“Edelman”) in support of Synopsys’s opposition;

Exhibits G, BB, CC, DD, JJ, KK, LL, MM, and NN to the Edelman Declaration; Exhibits B

and C to the Declaration of Narendra Shenoy in support of Synopsys’s opposition; Exhibits

B, C, D, and E to the Declaration of Richard Goldman (“Goldman”) in support of

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 283 Filed 07/11/05 Page 1 of 3
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

Synopsys’s opposition; and Exhibit C to the Declaration of Shanee Y. Williams in support of

Synopsys’s opposition.

Synopsys argues that the following documents, which were produced in discovery

by Magma and designated confidential by Magma, are not, in fact, confidential and should

not be filed under seal: Exhibits K, Q, AA, EE, II, and RR to the Edelman Declaration, and

Exhibit A to the Goldman Declaration. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(d), when a party wishes

to file a document that has been designated confidential by another party, the submitting

party must file an administrative motion for a sealing order. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d). The

designating party then must either serve a declaration within five days establishing that the

designated information is sealable or withdraw the designation of confidentiality. See Civil

L.R. 79-5(d). “If the designating party does not file its responsive declaration . . . the

document or proposed filing will be made part of the public record.” See id. As Magma has

not filed a response to Synopsys’s motion, Synopsys shall electronically file the disputed

documents in the public record.

Synopsys also argues that the following documents, which were produced in

discovery by Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe (“Orrick”) and designated confidential by

Orrick, are not, in fact, confidential and should not be filed under seal: Exhibits FF, GG, HH

to the Edelman Declaration. Although Orrick is not a party to the instant action, the Court

finds the procedures set out in Rule 79-5(d) to be applicable. There is nothing in the record

to indicate that Orrick has been made aware of Synopsys’s motion and, thus, the time for it

to file a response to Synopsys’s motion has not yet begun to run. Accordingly, Synopsys is

hereby ORDERED to serve Orrick with its administrative motion no later than Wednesday

July 13, 2005 and to file proof of service immediately thereafter.

For the reasons set forth above, Synopsys’s motion is hereby GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part, as follows:

1. The following documents shall be filed under seal: Synopsys’s unredacted

opposition to Magma’s motion for summary judgment; the unredacted Declaration of

Michael N. Edelman in support of Synopsys’s opposition; Exhibits G, BB, CC, DD, JJ, KK,

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 283 Filed 07/11/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

LL, MM, and NN to the Edelman Declaration; Exhibits B and C to the Declaration of

Narendra Shenoy in support of Synopsys’s opposition; Exhibits B, C, D, and E to the

Declaration of Richard Goldman in support of Synopsys’s opposition; and Exhibit C to the

Declaration of Shanee Y. Williams in support of Synopsys’s opposition.

2. Synopsys shall electronically file the following documents in the public record: 

Exhibits K, Q, AA, EE, II, and RR to the Edelman Declaration, and Exhibit A to the

Goldman Declaration.

3. The issue of whether to file the following documents under seal is taken under

submission, as such documents were designated confidential by Orrick and there is no

evidence that Orrick has received a copy of Synopsys’s motion: Exhibits FF, GG, HH to

the Edelman Declaration. Synopsys is hereby ORDERED to serve Orrick with its

administrative motion no later than Wednesday July 13, 2005 and to file proof of service

immediately thereafter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 11, 2005 

/s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 283 Filed 07/11/05 Page 3 of 3