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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYNOPSYS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00561-WHO 

ORDER ON PENDING 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 187, 196, 197

There are three pending motions to seal materials filed in support of and in opposition to 

Synopsys’ motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. Dkt. Nos. 187, 196, 197. All of 

the materials at issue have been designated confidential by Ubiquiti/UNIL. Because the materials 

at issue are more than tangentially related to the merits of the litigation – indeed they concern the 

ultimate scope of the litigation – Ubiquiti/UNIL must show compelling justifications to seal 

through a declaration that provides specific reasons why defendants would be harmed if the 

materials were disclosed, not mere conclusory assertions of harm. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 

Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Civil L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(A).

As an initial matter, Ubiquiti/UNIL’s counsel have wholly failed to comply with my 

Standing Order on Administrative Motions to Seal. That Standing Order requires counsel or a 

party to: (i) certify that the filing party has reviewed and complied with my Standing Order; (ii) 

identify the legal standard that applies to the sealing request; and (iii) only seek narrowly tailored 

sealing. See Judge Orrick’s Standing Order on Administrative Motions to Seal. There is no 

certification mentioning my Standing Order in the filings in support of sealing, there is no 

identification of the applicable legal standard, and (as identified below) their request covers whole 

exhibits and is not narrowly tailored. 

Those are sufficient grounds for me to deny the sealing requests and order that the 
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

information be publicly filed. I will nevertheless review the requests on their merits. However, 

counsel shall comply with my Standing Order for all future administrative motions to file under 

seal and any conclusory assertions of harm or assertions of harm not supported by personal 

knowledge will be denied. 

On the merits, it appears that the majority of the items Ubiquiti/UNIL want to keep under 

seal have little to do with confidential business practices and more to do with Synopsys’s

allegations of wrongdoing and inadequate investigations/measures undertaken by defendants. 

Defendants are cautioned that sealing is not meant to keep those sorts of allegations (where they 

are not made for an improper purpose, and the purpose here is not improper) out of the public 

view. Defendants are advised to avoid seeking to seal information without adequate justification 

in the future or risk sanction from the Court. 

I. MOTION FOR LEAVE AND EXHIBITS

Ubiquiti/UNIL do not seek to seal the following documents that were conditionally filed 

under seal by Synopsys and the Clerk shall UNSEAL them: 

Dkt. Nos. 187-7 (Ex. 3); 187-8 (Ex. 4); 187-9 (Ex. 5); 187-10 (Ex. 6); 187-11 (Ex. 7).

Ubiquiti/UNIL do seek to seal portions of the proposed TAC and the redline version. Dkt. 

Nos. 187-4 and 187-6. 

Portion of Exhibits 1 and 2 Basis for Sealing Ruling

Highlighting in para. 19 Discloses Ubiquiti’s 

confidential

business practices

DENIED. No adequate 

justification why disclosure of 

choice of law and venue in 

employee agreements could 

harm.

Highlighting in paras. 37-43 Discloses Ubiquiti’s 

confidential

business practices

DENIED. No adequate 

justification why disclosure of 

corporate structure, board 

resolutions, and information 

related to Code of Business 

Conduct and Ethics could 

harm.

Para. 44 – highlighted words

following “software for the...” 

and “Ubiquiti was developing 

in the...”

Discloses confidential code 

names related to development 

of Ubiquiti products

DENIED. No adequate 

justification why disclosure of

one “code name” for one 

project could harm.

Highlighting in paras. 45-47 Discloses confidential DENIED. No adequate
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

information relating to 

development of Ubiquiti

product

justification why disclosure of 

the relationship between Pera

and Tsai and Tsai’s hiring 

could harm.

Highlighting in para. 52 Discloses Ubiquiti’s 

confidential

business practices

DENIED. No adequate 

justification for sealing 

defendant’s discussion 

regarding Synopsys.

Para. 56 – highlighted words

following “with respect to 

the...”

Discloses confidential code 

names related to development 

of Ubiquiti products

DENIED as above to 

disclosure of one code name. 

Highlighting in para. 58 Discloses confidential 

information relating to 

development of Ubiquiti

product

DENIED. No adequate 

justification why disclosure of 

routine reporting information 

could harm.

Highlighting in para. 74 with 

the exception of the portion of 

the sentence starting with 

“which facilitated the Piracy 

Enterprises...” to the end of 

the sentence

Discloses confidential 

information relating to 

development of Ubiquiti

product

DENIED. No adequate

justification why disclosure of 

reporting relationship between 

Pera and Tsai could harm.

Highlighting in para. 95 Discloses confidential code 

names related to development 

of Ubiquiti products

DENIED. No adequate

justification why disclosure of 

“code name” for one project 

could harm.

Highlighting in para. 99 Discloses Ubiquiti’s 

confidential business practices

DENIED. No adequate 

justification why Pera’s 

travels to Taiwan or 

discussions with Taiwan 

employees could harm.

Para. 100 –highlighted words

following “for their work on 

the...” to the end of the 

sentence.

Discloses confidential code 

names related to development 

of Ubiquiti products and 

Ubiquiti’s confidential

business practices

DENIED. No adequate 

justification why disclosure of 

“code name” for one project 

and fact team members 

received raises for work on 

project could harm.

Highlighting in para. 103 Discloses Ubiquiti’s 

confidential business practices

DENIED. No adequate

justification why disclosure of 

allegations of insufficient 

investigation could harm.

Para. 104 – highlighted words

following “undertook a 

diligent investigation...”

Discloses Ubiquiti’s 

confidential business practices

DENIED. No adequate 

justification why disclosure of 

alleged length of investigation 

could harm.

Para. 106 –highlighted words

between “key members of the” 

and “have received”

Discloses confidential code 

names related to development 

of Ubiquiti products

DENIED. No adequate 

justification why disclosure of 

“code name” for one project 

could harm.
4

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

Northern District of California

Highlighting in para. 107 Discloses Ubiquiti’s 

confidential business practices

DENIED. No adequate 

justification why disclosure of 

date and allowing employee to 

collect own documents could 

harm.

Highlighting in para. 109 

except “airFiber 5xHD”

Discloses Ubiquiti’s 

confidential business practices 

and confidential code names 

related to development of 

Ubiquiti products

DENIED. No adequate 

justification why disclosure of 

“code name” for one project 

could harm.

Highlighting in para. 112 Discloses contents of alleged

communication from outside 

counsel

DENIED. No adequate 

justification why disclosure of 

internal client emails (not 

contents of communications 

with counsel) could harm.

Highlighting in para. 114 Discloses contents of alleged

communication from outside 

counsel

DENIED. No adequate 

justification why disclosure of 

what clients knew, being 

already known or assumed by 

Synopsys, could cause harm.

Highlighting in paras. 188-189 Discloses Ubiquiti’s 

confidential business practices 

and confidential code names 

related to development of 

Ubiquiti products

DENIED. No adequate 

justification why disclosure of 

“code name” for one project, 

disclosure of alleged control 

of Pera over EDA tools, or 

disclosure of remedial 

measures taken by defendants 

could harm.

Para. 192 – highlighted words

between “objective of the” and

“Tsai, Ubiquiti , and UNIL 

each”

Discloses confidential code 

names related to development 

of Ubiquiti products

DENIED. No adequate

justification why disclosure of 

“code name” for one project 

could harm.

Having failed to provide compelling justifications for sealing the information addressed 

above, the motion to seal is DENIED. The Clerk shall UNSEAL Dkt. Nos. 187-4 and 187-6.

II. OPPOSITION AND EXHIBITS

Ubiquiti/UNIL also seek to seal documents submitted in support of their opposition to 

Synopsys’s motion. Dkt. Nos. 196, 197.

As to Exhibits A, E, & F attached to the Declaration of Jennifer Lee Taylor (Dkt. No. 195), 

the request to seal is DENIED without prejudice. Ubiquiti/UNIL seek to seal these excerpts in 

full. The request is not only not narrowly tailored, it is also without support. Ubiquiti/UNIL do 

not identify the specific information they seek to seal, other than a vague description of 
5

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

Northern District of California

“confidential technical information regarding confidential aspects of Ubiquiti’s business 

operations.” Declaration of Robin L. Brewer (Dkt. No. 196-1) ¶¶ 6, 10, 12. That is insufficient. 

Nor do they identify any reasons, much less compelling justifications, that would merit sealing the 

unspecified information at issue. 

As to Exhibit B, the discovery response to Interrogatory No. 12 that Ubiquiti/UNIL seek to 

seal, discloses only host names of virtual machines that those defendants determined were used to 

access Synopsys’s software (and discloses a code name, the sealing of which has been denied 

above). The request to seal is DENIED. The discovery responses to Interrogatory Nos. 17 and 19 

discuss the generic details of Ubiquiti/UNIL’s response, investigation, and directions to employees 

following the initial allegations that they were illegally using Synopsys’s software. No 

compelling justifications have been shown to seal these generic details. The request to seal is 

DENIED. The discovery response to Interrogatory No. 21, discloses which EDA software tools 

were evaluated and which were eventually licensed and the response to Synopsys’s allegation that 

defendants were illegally using its software. No compelling justifications have been shown to seal 

these generic details. The request to seal is DENIED. The discovery response to Interrogatory 

No. 23 discloses only Ubiquiti/UNIL’s position regarding whether Tsai was acting in violation of 

Ubiquiti’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. No compelling justifications have been shown 

to seal these generic details. The request to seal is DENIED. 

As to Exhibit D, the request is DENIED. No compelling justifications have been shown to 

justify sealing this email discussing review of two simulators and the temporal licensing needs of 

UNIL.

Exhibit 1 to the Nisenbaum Declaration is the transcript of a Skype call between Tsai and 

someone else. Ubiquiti/UNIL do not seek to seal this information on their own behalf, but assert 

that Tsai might find something in the transcript “sensitive” and indicate that Tsai may submit a 

declaration in support of sealing. Dkt. No. 197. The request is DENIED. Tsai has not submitted 

a declaration in support of sealing. Mere “sensitivity” of information does not provide a 

compelling justification to seal court records.

Therefore, the Clerk shall UNSEAL Dkt. Nos. 196-5, 196-6, 197-2. 
6

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

Northern District of California

If Ubiquiti/UNIL have a good faith belief that they can show compelling justifications to 

seal discrete portions of the deposition excerpts attached as Exhibits A, E, &F, within five (5) days 

of the date of this Order, they shall submit a declaration identifying which discrete portions they 

wish to seal, identify the specific types of information they seek to seal, and provide facts 

establishing that disclosure of that information could cause specific harm. The declaration shall be 

provided by someone with personal knowledge of the information and harm. If no further 

declaration in support of sealing is filed, these exhibits shall be unsealed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2018

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge