Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation
Filing
145
ORDER RE: CASE SCHEDULE re 141 Joint Case Management Statement filed by Synopsys, Inc.. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 3/10/14. (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/11/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
David T. Pritikin (Pro Hac Vice)
dpritikin@sidley.com
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 853-7000
Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
George A. Riley (SBN 118304)
griley@omm.com
Mark E. Miller (SBN 130200)
markmiller@omm.com
Luann L. Simmons (SBN 203526)
lsimmons@omm.com
Michael Sapoznikow (SBN 242640)
msapoznikow@omm.com
Elizabeth Offen-Brown (SBN 279077)
eoffenbrown@omm.com
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone:
(415) 984-8700
Facsimile:
(415) 984-8701
M. Patricia Thayer (SBN 90818)
pthayer@sidley.com
Philip W. Woo (SBN 196459)
pwoo@sidley.com
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 California Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 772-1200
Facsimile: (415) 772-7400
Kristin L. Cleveland (SBN 184639)
kristin.cleveland@klarquist.com
Salumeh R. Loesch (Pro Hac Vice)
salumeh.loesch@klarquist.com
Jeffrey S. Love (SBN 195068)
jeffrey.love@klarquist.com
Andrew M. Mason (Pro Hac Vice)
andrew.mason@klarquist.com
John D. Vandenberg (Pro Hac Vice)
john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 1600
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone:
(503) 595-5300
Facsimile:
(503) 595-5301
I. Neel Chatterjee (SBN 173985)
nchatterjee@orrick.com
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: (650) 614-7400
Facsimile: (650) 614-7401
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SYNOPSYS, INC.
15
16
Attorneys for Defendant
MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION
17
18
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
20
NORTHERN DISTRICT CALIFORNIA - SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
21
SYNOPSYS, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
22
23
24
25
26
Plaintiff,
vs.
MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION, an
Oregon Corporation,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:12-cv-06467-MMC
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CASE
SCHEDULE
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CASE SCHEDULE – CASE NO. 3:12-CV-06467-MMC
1
The Court enters the following revised schedule in this case:
2
Description
Previous Schedule
[Proposed] New
Schedule 1
Further Status Conference
January 17, 2014
March 7, 2014
(10:30 a.m.)
6
Privilege Logs Due
March 31, 2014
June 13, 2014
7
Completion of Non-Expert
Discovery
May 12, 2014
July 18, 2014
Expert Reports (Party with
burden of proof)
June 6, 2014
August 15, 2014
Rebuttal Expert Reports
June 20, 2014
August 29, 2014
Reply Expert Reports
June 27, 2014
September 5, 2014
Completion of Expert Discovery
July 18, 2014
September 19, 2014
3
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
Deadline for Daubert Motions
14
Deadline for Dispositive
Motions
October 3, 2014
July 25, 2014
October 3, 2014
Response to Dispositive
Motions and Daubert Motions
August 8, 2014
October 17, 2014
Replies to Dispositive Motions
and Daubert Motions
August 15, 2014
October 24, 2014
Hearing on Dispositive Motions
and Daubert Motions
15
August 29, 2014
November 7, 2014
16
17
18
19
20
(Or at Court’s
convenience)
21
22
Pretrial Meet and Confer
24
25
26
27
1
28
No later than
September 8, 2014
No later than
December 1, 2014
File Joint Pretrial Conference
Statement, exhibit list and
objections, witness list, trial
briefs, motions in limine, joint
proposed voir dire, joint
23
September 30, 2014
December 19, 2014
18
Dates in bold were set by the Court in its December 23, 2013 order. D.I. 119.
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CASE SCHEDULE – CASE NO. 3:12-CV-06467-MMC
proposed jury instructions, and
proposed verdict forms
1
2
Pretrial Conference
October 14, 2014
January 13, 2015
(10:00 a.m.)
6-day trial beginning
Monday, October 27,
2014
6-day trial beginning
Monday, January
26, 2015 (9:00 a.m.)
3
4
TRIAL
5
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
10
Dated:
March 10, 2014
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CASE SCHEDULE – CASE NO. 3:12-CV-06467-MMC
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?