Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03923/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03923-10/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 DENYING SYNOPSYS’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE

UNDER SEAL CERTAIN DOCUMENTS

RELATING TO MAGMA’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docket No. 240)

On June 30, 2005, plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”) filed an administrative

motion to file under seal certain documents relating 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. On July 11, 2005, the Court granted

the motion in part and denied it in part. With respect to three exhibits produced in

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

which Synopsys contends are not confidential, the Court ordered Synopsys to serve its

motion on Orrick. Synopsys has filed proof of service attesting that Orrick was served on

July 11, 2005.

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(d), when a party wishes to file a document that has been

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 332 Filed 07/22/05 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

1

 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.

2

designated confidential by another party,1 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 Orrick has been served with Synopsys’s motion, and, to date, has failed to file a

response to the motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), Synopsys’s motion to file

under seal Exhibits FF, GG, and HH to the Declaration of Michael N. Edelman in support of

Synopsys’s opposition to Magma’s motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED, and

Synopsys is hereby ORDERED to electronically file said documents in the public record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2005 

/s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 332 Filed 07/22/05 Page 2 of 2