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

MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.

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 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 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.