Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965-101/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 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

FILE UNDER SEAL (a) PORTIONS OF

ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND (b) CERTAIN

SUPPORTING EXHIBITS (DOC. NO.

405); DIRECTIONS TO DEFENDANT

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

to seal (Doc. No. 405), filed October 31, 2015, by which ATopTech seeks permission to

seal Exhibits 1, 2, 6 - 22, and 24 - 34 to the “Declaration of Paul Alexander in Support of

Defendant ATopTech, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (“Alexander Declaration”), as

well as portions of the motion for summary judgment that reference said exhibits. Exhibits

25 and 26 and related portions of the motion have been designated confidential by both

parties; Exhibits 31 - 34 and related portions of the motion have been designated

confidential by ATopTech; Exhibits 1, 2, 6 - 22, 24, and 27 - 30 and related portions of the

motion have been designated as confidential by plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”). 

Concurrently with the instant motion, ATopTech 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

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 697 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

6, 2015, Synopsys filed a declaration in support of sealing Exhibits 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13 -

18, 20, 21, 24, 25 - 27, 29, and 30 to the Alexander Declaration and related portions of the

motion for summary judgment. 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 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14 - 18, 21, 24 - 27, 31 - 33 to the Alexander 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 8, 9, 12, 19, 22, and 28 to the Alexander Declaration and related portions of the

motion for summary judgment, the motion is hereby DENIED, as Synopsys has not

addressed such material in its responsive declaration. ATopTech 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 30 and 34 to the Alexander Declaration and related portions of the motion for

summary judgment, the motion is hereby DENIED, as, contrary to the parties’ assertions,

said exhibits contain no sealable material. ATopTech is hereby DIRECTED to file in the

public record, no later than March 25, 2016, unredacted versions of Exhibits 30 and 34.

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

Exhibits 6, 20, and 29 to the Alexander Declaration and related portions of the motion for

summary judgment, the request is overbroad, as said exhibits appear to contain substantial

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 697 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

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

Exhibits 6, 20, and 29 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 exhibit. Pending the Court’s ruling

on the supplemental responses, Exhibits 6, 20, and 29 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 697 Filed 03/11/16 Page 3 of 3