Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc

Filing 361

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY LETTERS 327 328 331 . By Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 12:00 p.m., each party shall identify four discovery disputes from the joint letters. The parties will only be permitted to present argument on the identified disputes. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 09/07/15. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SYNOPSYS, INC.,

Case No. 13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR)

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTERS

9
10

ATOPTECH, INC,

Dkt Nos. 327, 328, 331

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The parties filed three joint discovery letters (Docket Nos. 327, 328, 331) that collectively

13

raise over 30 discovery disputes relevant to Synopsys’s non-patent claims against ATopTech. It is

14

clear from the joint letters that the parties did not finish meeting and conferring about some of

15

these disputes before filing the letters.

16

On August 24, 2015, the court issued a clerk’s notice requiring the parties to indicate

17

which, if any, of the issues had been resolved without court intervention. See Docket No. 350.

18

The parties responded, see Docket No. 352, that they had only resolved one set of discovery

19

disputes, despite the fact that many of the disputes in the joint letter appeared to be readily

20

resolvable. See, e.g. Docket No. 327 at 1 (Synopsys stating that it moves to compel deposition of

21

ATopTech on its Rule 30(b)(6) Topics 15-(a)-(d) but providing no argument regarding this aspect

22

of motion to compel); at 4 (Synopsys moving to compel ATopTech to provide dates for

23

depositions of two witnesses that ATopTech had agreed to provide); Docket No. 327 at 7 and

24

Docket No. 328 at 6 (Synopsys moving to compel ATopTech to produce additional documents for

25

Y.Z. Liao, and ATopTech agreeing to produce those documents); Docket No. 328 at 6 (ATopTech

26

“is working to resolve” Synopsys’s request that ATopTech correlate attachments from JIRA

27

database entries to the entries themselves).

28

In addition, this court’s standing order requires the parties to “provide each party’s final

1

proposed compromise” for each discovery issue, and the parties failed to so provide. See Docket

2

No. 159 at 2. In short, the court is concerned that the parties have not made adequate efforts to

3

prioritize their disputes, and to reach reasonable compromises on matters that should not require

4

judicial intervention. See also NDCA’s “Guidelines for Professional Conduct,” Section 10(a)

5

(“Before filing a motion, a lawyer should engage in a good faith effort to resolve the issue. In

6

particular, civil discovery motions should be filed sparingly.”).
In an order dated September 4, 2015, the court notified the parties that the court’s motion

7
8

calendar on the scheduled hearing date of September 10, 2015 is long, and the parties will only be

9

permitted to make limited argument. See Docket No. 360.
Below is a list of all of the discovery disputes that the parties have identified in the three

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

joint discovery letters (except for the ones that the parties have resolved, see Docket No. 352). By

12

Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 12:00 p.m., each party shall identify four of the below disputes

13

by corresponding number. The parties will only be permitted to present argument on the

14

identified disputes. For the remainder of the disputes, the parties shall meet and confer about them

15

in the Attorney Lounge of the Oakland Courthouse on September 10, 2015 starting at 10:00 a.m.

16

(as previously ordered in Docket No. 360), and recommencing after the hearing. Counsel shall be

17

prepared to stay until the end of the day if necessary.

18
DISCOVERY DISPUTES IDENTIFIED IN DOCKET NOS. 327, 328, 331

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1.

Synopsys 30(b)(6) Topic 1: ATopTech’s document retention and storage

2.

Synopsys 30(b)(6) Topic 2: ATopTech’s search for/review of documents in this case

3.

Synopsys 30(b)(6) Topic 3: Synopsys documents in ATopTech’s possession

4.

Synopsys 30(b)(6) Topic 4: Extreme DA documents in ATopTech’s possession

5.

Synopsys 30(b)(6) Topic 8: JIRA database

6.

Synopsys 30(b)(6) Topic 9: ATopTech’s source code management or version control
software

7.

Synopsys 30(b)(6) Topic 11: ATopTech’s knowledge of Synopsys’s products, including
knowledge of input/out formats

28
2

8.

Synopsys 30(b)(6) Topic 14: ATopTech’s access to and use of Solvnet

9.

Synopsys 30(b)(6) Topic 15: ATopTech’s sales and marketing

10.

Synopsys 30(b)(6) Topic 16: knowledge and use of Synopsys Design Constraints

11.

Synopsys 30(b)(6) Topic 19: all facts supporting all ATopTech’s affirmative defenses

12.

Additional Deposition Testimony from Already-Deposed Witnesses (Wang and Thune)

13.

Scheduling Depositions of Kaiwin Lee and Sofie Vandeputte

14.

Additional Deposition Testimony and Documents from Y.Z. Liao

15.

ATopTech 30(b)(6) Topics 1 and 9, Rog Nos. 3 and 6, RFP Nos. 32 and 36: Synopsys’s
creation of PrimeTime’s input/output formats

9

16.

ATopTech’s Search Terms Regarding Input and Output Formats

10

17.

ATopTech 30(b)(6) Topic 4: aspects of Aprisa that infringe copyright

11

18.

ATopTech’s Pre-2009 Financial Statements

12

19.

ATopTech’s Annual Budgets

13

20.

ATopTech’s Customer List; Purchase Orders; Invoices; Quotes

14

21.

ATopTech’s NDAs and Evaluation Agreements

15

22.

Matching JIRA Attachments to JIRA Entries

16

23.

CVS Directory Documents

17

24.

Deeming all Synopsys RFAs Admitted/Chern Protective Order

18

25.

Synopsys RFA No. 5: ATopTech downloaded materials from Solvnet

19

26.

Synopsys RFA Nos. 21-24: ATopTech accessed Solvnet on certain dates

20

27.

Synopsys Interrogatory No. 3: ATopTech’s Review/Analysis of “Synopsys Products”

21

28.

Synopsys Interrogatory Nos. 5-6: contention that ATopTech independently created input
formats

29.

Synopsys Interrogatory Nos. 8: ATopTech’s First Affirmative Defense (formats are
functional or public knowledge)

24

30.

Synopsys Interrogatory No. 9: ATopTech’s Second Affirmative Defense (interoperability)

25

31.

Synopsys Interrogatory No. 10: ATopTech’s Third Affirmative Defense (interoperability)

26

32.

Synopsys Interrogatory No. 11: ATopTech’s Fourth Affirmative Defense (industry
standards)

33.

Synopsys Interrogatory No. 12: ATopTech’s Sixth Affirmative Defense (good faith)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

22
23

27
28

3

1
2
3

34.
.

Synops Interroga
sys
atory No. 14: ATopTech Tenth Aff
:
h’s
firmative De
efense (Syno
opsys’s
stateme
ents)

35.
.

Synops Interroga
sys
atory No. 15: Identificati of Aprisa
:
ion
a/Apogee Pr
roducts and
Docum
mentation

4
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
5
6
Da
ated: Septem
mber 7, 2015
7
8

___
__________
___________
__________
________
Donna M. Ryu
Un
nited States M
Magistrate J
Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4