Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation

Filing 390

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF MENTOR'S REPLY BRIEF REGARDING MENTOR'S DAUBERT MOTION Synopsys may file a sur-reply on the issue of whether Ms. Woodford's testimony is conclusory regarding Panduit factor 2; the remainder of Synopsys' request to file a sur-reply is denied. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 5, 2014.(mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/5/2014)

Case3:12-cv-06467-MMC Document376-1 Filed11/04/14 Page1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
SYNOPSYS, INC., a Delaware
Case No. 3:12-cv-06467-MMC-DMR
Corporation,
GRANTING IN PART AND
Plaintiff,
^
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
v.
MENTOR’S REPLY BRIEF
REGARDING MENTOR’S DAUBERT
MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY
MENTOR GRAPHICS
OF MARY WOODFORD, OR IN THE
CORPORATION, an Oregon
ALTERNATIVE FOR PERMISSION TO
Corporation,
FILE A SUR-REPLY

Defendant.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STRIKE
PORTIONS OF MENTOR’S REPLY BRIEF REGARDING MENTOR’S DAUBERT MOTION
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-06467-MMC

Case3:12-cv-06467-MMC Document376-1 Filed11/04/14 Page2 of 2

1

Plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”) filed its Administrative Motion To Strike

2

Portions Of Mentor’s Reply Brief Regarding Mentor’s Daubert Motion To Exclude

3

Testimony Of Mary Woodford, Or In The Alternative For Permission To File A Sur-

4

Reply (“Motion”) (Dkt. No. 359); Mentor Graphics Corporation filed its Response

5

thereto on November 4, 2014 (“Response”). After fully considering the Motion and

6

Response thereto, Synopsys’s Motion is DENIED-IN-PART and GRANTED-IN-

7

PART.

8
9

Synopsys may file a sur-reply on the issue of whether Ms. Woodford’s
testimony is conclusory regarding Panduit factor 2 (Dkt. No. 359-3 at 3:3-13)

10

because Mentor does not oppose that portion of Synopsys’s Motion. The remainder

11

of Synopsys’s request to file a sur-reply is denied because Mentor adequately raised

12

Synopsys’s discovery failures in its opening motion (Dkt. No. 290-3).

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17

November 5, 2014
Dated: ___________________
Honorable Maxine M. Chesney
United States District Court Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO STRIKE
PORTIONS OF MENTOR’S REPLY BRIEF REGARDING MENTOR’S DAUBERT MOTION
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-06467-MMC

1