Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965-98/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 PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (a)

PORTIONS OF ITS MOTION IN LIMINE

NO. 1 AND (b) CERTAIN SUPPORTING

EXHIBITS (DOC. NO. 389); DIRECTIONS

TO PLAINTIFF

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

seal (Doc. No. 389), filed October 16, 2015, by which Synopsys seeks permission to seal

the entirety of Exhibits 9, 11 - 14, 16, and 17 to the “Declaration of Patrick T. Michael in

Support of Plaintiff Synopsys, Inc.’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to Limit Evidence of a ‘NonInfringing Alternative’” (“Michael Declaration”), as well as portions of Synopsys’s Motion in

Limine No. 1. Exhibits 9 and 11 have been designated confidential by both parties,

whereas Exhibits 12 - 14, 16, and 17, and the portions of the Motion in Limine have been

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

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

sealing Exhibits 9 and 11 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

sealable”). Pursuant to the Local Rules of this district, ATopTech was required to file by

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 691 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

October 20, 2015, a responsive declaration in support of sealing the material it has

designated as confidential. 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”). To date, no such declaration has been filed. Having read and considered the

administrative motion and Synopsys’s declaration, 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 and 11 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 Exhibits 12 - 14,

16, and 17, as well as portions of Synopsys’s Motion in Limine No. 1, the motion is hereby

DENIED, as ATopTech has not shown such material is sealable. Synopsys is hereby

DIRECTED to file in the public record, no later than March 18, 2016, unredacted versions

of said exhibits and motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2016 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 691 Filed 03/10/16 Page 2 of 2