Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965-100/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 (1) PORTIONS OF

ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND (2) CERTAIN

SUPPORTING EXHIBITS (DOC. NO.

398); DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF

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

seal (Doc. No. 398), filed October 30, 2015, by which Synopsys seeks permission to seal

the following material: (a) the entirety of Exhibits 1, 8, 9, 10 - 15, 17 - 19, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29,

30, 32 - 35 to the “Declaration of Patrick T. Michael in Support of Plaintiff Synopsys, Inc.’s

Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Defendant ATopTech’s Affirmative Defenses”

(“Michael Declaration”); (b) the entirety of Exhibit 3 to the “Declaration of Dr. David T.

Blaauw in Support of Plaintiff Synopsys, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment on

Defendant ATopTech’s Affirmative Defenses” (“Blaauw Declaration”); and (c) related

portions of Synopsys’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Exhibits 1, 21, and 25 to the

Michael Declaration have been designated confidential by both parties; Exhibits 9 and 32 -

35 to the Michael Declaration, as well as Exhibit 3 to the Blaauw Declaration have been

designated confidential by Synopsys; and Exhibits 8, 10 - 15, 17 - 19, 24, 27, 29, and 30,

as well as portions of the Motion for Summary Judgment have been designated confidential

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 696 Filed 03/11/16 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

by defendant ATopTech, Inc. (“ATopTech”). 

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

sealing its 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 November

5, 2015, ATopTech filed a declaration in support of sealing Exhibits 1, 8, 21, 25, and 30 to

the Michael 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 9, 21, 30, and 32 - 35 to the Michael Declaration, Exhibit 3 to the Blaauw

Declaration, and related portions of the Motion for Summary Judgment, 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

Exhibits 10 - 15, 17 - 19, 24, 27, and 29, as well as related portions of the Motion for

Summary Judgment, the motion is hereby DENIED, as ATopTech has not addressed such

material in its responsive declaration. Synopsys is hereby DIRECTED to file in the public

record, no later than March 25, 2016, unredacted versions of said exhibits.

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

Exhibits 1, 8, and 25 to the Michael Declaration and related portions of the Motion for

Summary Judgment, the request is overbroad, as said documents appear to contain

substantial amounts of non-sealable material. In lieu of denial, the Court hereby DEFERS

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 696 Filed 03/11/16 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

ruling on Exhibits 1, 8, and 25 and related portions of the Motion, pending each party’s

filing, no later than March 25, 2016, a supplemental response that identifies with specificity

such party’s confidential material contained within each said document. Pending the

Court’s ruling on the supplemental responses, Exhibits 1, 8, 25, and the unredacted Motion

for Summary Judgment shall remain under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2016 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 696 Filed 03/11/16 Page 3 of 3