Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965-61/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

ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF

DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Before the Court is defendant ATopTech, Inc.’s (“ATopTech”) “Administrative Motion

for Leave to File Documents Under Seal,” filed August 20, 2015, pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 79-5, by which ATopTech seeks to seal portions of its opposition to Synopsys, Inc.’s

(“Synopsys”) “Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint,” as well as the entirety

of exhibits B, D, E, F, and G to the supporting declaration of Paul Alexander. 

Certain portions of the material sought to be sealed have been designated

confidential by ATopTech, and ATopTech has submitted a declaration in support thereof. 

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”). Other portions have been so designated by

Synopsys, and, on August 24, 2015, Synopsys filed its responsive declaration in support of

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 373 Filed 09/15/15 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

sealing. 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 finds good cause has been shown for the relief requested and,

accordingly, ATopTech’s administrative motion to seal is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2015 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 373 Filed 09/15/15 Page 2 of 2