Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965-91/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 MOTIONS IN LIMINE

AND (b) CERTAIN SUPPORTING

EXHIBITS (DOC. NO. 544); DIRECTIONS

TO DEFENDANT

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

to seal (Doc. No. 544), filed January 26, 2016, by which ATopTech seeks permission to

seal the entirety of Exhibits 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 - 12, 15, 16 - 20, and 26 to the “Omnibus

Declaration of Paul Alexander in Support of Defendant ATopTech’s Motions in Limine Nos.

1 through 6” (“Alexander Declaration”), as well as portions of ATopTech’s Motions in Limine

Nos. 1 and 2. 

All of the material to which the instant motion pertains has been designated

confidential by plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”). On February 2, 2016, Synopsys filed a

responsive declaration in support of sealing some of said material, specifically, Exhibits 5,

8, 10, 11, and 15 - 18 to the Alexander Declaration, as well as some of the text that

ATopTech seeks permission to seal in Motion in Limine No. 2. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d)-(e)

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

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 674 Filed 03/08/16 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

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 Synopsys’s responsive 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 5, 8, 10, 11, and 15 - 18 to the Alexander Declaration, as well as portions of

ATopTech’s Motion in Limine No. 2, 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, no later than March 18, 2016, a version of its Motion in Limine No. 2 in which

the portions identified as confidential in Synopsys’s responsive declaration are redacted.

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

Exhibits 6, 9, 12, 19, 20, and 26, as well as portions of ATopTech’s Motion in Limine No. 1,

the motion is hereby DENIED, as Synopsys has not addressed said 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 its Motion in Limine No. 1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2016 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 674 Filed 03/08/16 Page 2 of 2