Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965-97/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, DENYING

IN PART, AND DEFERRING RULING IN

PART ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

FILE UNDER SEAL (a) PORTIONS OF

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1

AND (b) CERTAIN SUPPORTING

EXHIBITS (DOC. NO. 416); DIRECTIONS

TO PLAINTIFF

Before the Court is plaintiff Synopsys, Inc.’s (“Synopsys”) administrative motion to

seal (Doc. No. 416), filed November 6, 2015, by which Synopsys seeks permission to seal

the entirety of Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 to the “Declaration of Patrick T. Michael in Support of

Reply in Support of Plaintiff Synopsys, Inc.’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to Limit Evidence of a

‘Non-Infringing Alternative’” (“Michael Declaration”), as well as portions of Synopsys’s reply

brief. Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 have been designated confidential by Synopsys, whereas the

portions of the reply brief have been designated confidential by defendant ATopTech, Inc.

(“ATopTech”). 

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

sealing Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 to the Michael Declaration. 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

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 685 Filed 03/10/16 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

sealable”). Thereafter, on November 11, 2015, ATopTech filed a declaration to “advise[]

the Court that it does not seek confidential treatment” of any of the material to which the

instant motion pertains. (See Alexander Decl., filed Nov. 11, 2015, at 2:15-18.) 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

Exhibit 4 to the Michael Declaration, 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 portions of the

reply brief, the motion is hereby DENIED, as ATopTech does not claim such material is

confidential. Synopsys is hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record, no later than

March 18, 2016, an unredacted version of its reply brief.

According to Synopsys’s declaration, Exhibits 1 and 2 are sealable because they

“contain[] certain commands, options, and other input or output formats that are found in

Synopsys’ software products and technical documentation.” (See Nelson Decl. ¶ 3.) 

Although the Court agrees that Exhibits 1 and 2 contain such sealable material, said

exhibits also appear to contain a substantial amount of non-sealable material. In lieu of

denial, the Court hereby DEFERS ruling on Exhibits 1 and 2, pending Synopsys’s filing in

the public record, no later than March 18, 2016, versions of each exhibit in which the

redactions are limited to material that is sealable. Pending the Court’s ruling on those

filings, Exhibits 1 and 2 shall remain under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2016 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 685 Filed 03/10/16 Page 2 of 2