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)

Download PDF
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?