Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965-95/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 OPPOSITIONS TO

PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND

(b) CERTAIN SUPPORTING EXHIBITS

(DOC. NO. 589); DIRECTIONS TO

DEFENDANT

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

to seal (Doc. No. 589), filed February 2, 2016, by which ATopTech seeks permission to

seal the entirety of Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 - 8 to the “Omnibus Declaration of Paul Alexander in

Support of ATopTech’s Oppositions to Synopsys Motions in Limine Nos. 2 through 11”

(“Alexander Declaration”), as well as portions of ATopTech’s Oppositions to Synopsys’s

Motions in Limine Nos. 2 - 4, 6, 7, and 9 - 11. Exhibits 1 and 2 and portions of the

Oppositions to Motions in Limine Nos. 7 and 10 have been designated confidential by

ATopTech; Exhibits 4 - 8 and portions of the Oppositions to Motions in Limine Nos. 4, 6, 9,

and 11 have been designated confidential by plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”); and

portions of the Oppositions to Motions in Limine Nos. 2 and 3 have been designated

confidential by both parties. 

On February 2, 2016, ATopTech filed a declaration in support of sealing its

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 681 Filed 03/09/16 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

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 February 8, 2016,

Synopsys filed a responsive declaration in support of sealing Exhibit 7 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 1, 2, and 7 to the Alexander Declaration, as well as portions of the Oppositions to

Synopsys’s Motions in Limine Nos. 2, 3, 7, and 10, the Court finds good cause has been

shown, and, accordingly, the motion is hereby GRANTED. ATopTech is hereby

DIRECTED to file in the public record versions of the Oppositions to Motions in Limine Nos.

2 and 3 in which only ATopTech’s confidential information is redacted.

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

Exhibits 4 - 6 and 8, as well as portions of the Oppositions to Synopsys’s Motions in Limine

Nos. 4, 6, 9, and 11, 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 18, 2016, unredacted versions of said exhibits and Oppositions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2016 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 681 Filed 03/09/16 Page 2 of 2