Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation
Filing
219
SECOND STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO FILE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 1, 2014. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
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
Aseem S. Gupta (S.B. # 252858)
agupta@sidley.com
M. Patricia Thayer (S.B. #90818)
pthayer@sidley.com
Philip W. Woo (S.B. #196459)
pwoo@sidley.com
Sidley Austin LLP
555 California Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 772-1200
Facsimile: (415) 772-7400
I. Neel Chatterjee (S.B. #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.
16
17
18
Attorneys for Defendant
MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION
19
20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
21
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
George A. Riley (S.B. #118304)
griley@omm.com
Mark E. Miller (S.B. #130200)
markmiller@omm.com
Luann L. Simmons (S.B. #203526)
lsimmons@omm.com
Michael Sapoznikow (S.B. #242640)
msapoznikow@omm.com
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 984-8700
Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
Xavier A. Clark (Pro Hac Vice)
xavier.clark@klarquist.com
Kristin L. Cleveland (S.B. #184639)
kristin.cleveland@klarquist.com
Salumeh R. Loesch (Pro Hac Vice)
salumeh.loesch@klarquist.com
Jeffrey S. Love (S.B. #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
Philip J. Warrick (Pro Hac Vice)
philip.warrick@klarquist.com
Owen D. Yeates (Pro Hac Vice)
owen.yeates@klarquist.com
Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 1600
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 595-5300
Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
SYNOPSYS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation
Plaintiff,
v.
MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION,
an Oregon Corporation,
Case No. 3:12-cv-06467-MMC
SECOND STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING DEADLINE TO FILE
MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY
Defendant.
SECOND STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO FILE MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY CASE NO. 3:12-CV-06467-MMC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff Synopsys, Inc.
(“Synopsys”) and Defendant Mentor Graphics Corp. (“Mentor Graphics”) as follows:
WHEREAS, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29 provides that the Parties may
stipulate to extend discovery;
WHEREAS, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29(b) provides that Court
approval is required to extend discovery, even where the Parties have stipulated to
the extension;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 37-3 the last day to file a motion to
compel discovery is July 25, 2014;
WHEREAS, the Parties filed a stipulation (Dkt. No. 208) and the Court
Ordered an extension of the deadlines on which to file a motion to compel discovery
to August 1 (Dkt. No. 211);
WHEREAS, the Parties still are continuing to discuss issues and believe there
are some disputes that may be resolved through further supplementation and/or
cooperation;
WHEREAS, good cause exists for allowing the Parties to extend the deadline
on which to file a motion to compel discovery for these issues;
NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, the Parties hereby
stipulate to extend the deadline on which to file a motion to compel discovery to
August 5, 2014, as to the following discovery disputes:
1.
22
23
24
60, 71, 72, and 94-118;
2.
Mentor’s responses to Synopsys’ Interrogatory Nos. 15, 24, 31, and 36;
3.
Synopsys’ responses to Mentor’s Requests For Admission Nos. 27, 33-
25
26
Mentor’s responses to Synopsys’ Requests For Admission Nos. 49, 53,
36, 45-58, 62-65, 70-72, 75-76, 87-88, 92, 101-02, and 104-05;
4.
Mentor’s challenges to certain of Synopsys’ documents designated
27
28
SECOND STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO FILE MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY CASE NO. 3:12-CV-06467-MMC
1
1
“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” detailed in counsel for
2
3
4
Mentor’s July 15, 2014 letter to counsel for Synopsys;
5.
Mentor’s request for the deposition of Kevin Kranen;
6.
The parties’ follow-up requests as to various documents and
5
information requested to be produced related to alleged “damages”
6
7
issues, per the parties’ correspondence from July 16-18, 2014; and
7.
8
9
10
11
12
Mentor’s follow-up request to produce document retention/destruction
policies, pursuant to the July 25, 2014 deposition of Brent Gregory.
AND, the Parties further stipulate to extend the deadline on which to file a
motion to compel discovery to August 8, 2014, as to the following discovery disputes:
1.
Mentor’s challenges to Synopsys’ privilege log, detailed in counsel for
Mentor’s July 18, 2014 letter to counsel for Synopsys.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECOND STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO FILE MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY CASE NO. 3:12-CV-06467-MMC
2
1
2
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: August 1, 2014
3
By: /s/ Salumeh R. Loesch
Salumeh R. Loesch
Attorneys for Defendant
MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION
4
5
6
Dated: August 1, 2014
7
By: /s/ Philip W. Woo
Philip W. Woo
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SYNOPSYS, INC.
8
9
10
11
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer of this document attests that
12
concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other
13
signatory above.
14
15
16
Dated: August 1, 2014
By: /s/ Salumeh R. Loesch
Salumeh R. Loesch
17
18
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
21
22
DATED:
August 1, 2014
Honorable Maxine M. Chesney
United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECOND STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO FILE MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY CASE NO. 3:12-CV-06467-MMC
3
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?