Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965-62/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

DEFERRING RULING IN PART ON

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL;

DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

On August 6, 2015, Plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”) filed two administrative

motions for leave to file under seal various documents, including Exhibits C - K and P - R to

the Declaration of Patrick T. Michael (“Michael Declaration”) submitted in support of its

“Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint” (“Motion to Amend”), which exhibits

were designated confidential by defendant ATopTech, Inc. (“ATopTech”), as well as the

portions of the Motion to Amend that cite to said exhibits.

Pursuant to the local rules of this district, ATopTech bears the burden of

demonstrating the propriety of sealing any material so designated, and was required to

make such showing no later than August 11, 2015. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d)-(e) (providing,

where party seeks to file under seal material designated confidential by another party, such

party shall file motion for sealing order, after which designating party must file, “within 4

days,” declaration “establishing that all of the designated information is sealable”). As of

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 376 Filed 09/17/15 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

1

As counsel for ATopTech correctly noted in the telephone conference conducted

September 11, 2015, the Court, in its order of August 25, 2015, afforded ATopTech leave

to file such additional declaration.

2

August 13, 2015, ATopTech had not filed a declaration in support of sealing. 

Consequently, the Court denied Synopsys’s administrative motion to the extent such

motion sought leave to file under seal documents designated confidential by ATopTech,

and directed the Clerk to file in the public record the unredacted Motion to Amend and

Exhibits C - K and P - R to the Michael Declaration. (See Order, filed Aug. 13, 2015.) On

August 17, 2015, the Clerk filed the exhibits in accordance with the Court’s order.

Thereafter, on August 20, 2015, ATopTech’s counsel filed a responsive declaration

in support of the filing under seal of the materials ATopTech had designated confidential. 

(See Alexander Decl. ¶ 1.) Finding ATopTech’s request overbroad, the Court again denied

the motion with respect to Exhibits C - K and P - R as well as the portions of the Motion to

Amend citing thereto. (See Order, filed Aug. 25, 2015.) 

Now before the Court is ATopTech’s Amended Responsive Declaration1

, by which

ATopTech again seeks an order sealing the above-referenced materials. Having read and

considered ATopTech’s amended declaration, the Court rules as follows. 

To the extent the administrative motion seeks to seal the entirety of Exhibits C, F - K,

and P - R to the Michael Declaration, the Court finds good cause has been shown, and the

Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to file under seal the unredacted Motion to Amend, as

well as Exhibits C, F - K, and P - R. 

Exhibits D and E to the Michael Declaration, however, appear to contain substantial

amounts of non-sealable material. “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.” See Civil L.R. 79-5(a). The

request “must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” See id. In

lieu of denial, the Court DEFERS ruling on Exhibits D and E pending ATopTech’s filing, by

September 30, 2015, a supplemental response that provides redacted versions of said

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 376 Filed 09/17/15 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

exhibits, limiting the material sought to be sealed to that which is confidential. Pending the

Court’s ruling on the supplemental response, said exhibits will remain in the public record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2015 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 376 Filed 09/17/15 Page 3 of 3