Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc
Filing
785
ORDER re Discovery Letter Brief RE: ESI Discovery 774 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 7/5/2016. (dmrlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/5/2016)
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: ESI DISCOVERY
9
10
ATOPTECH, INC,
Re: Dkt. No. 774
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
On June 24, 2016, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding their dispute over
13
whether any additional ESI discovery should be permitted for the patent portion of this case. ESI
14
Discovery Letter [Docket No. 774.]
15
On February 18, 2015, the court entered the parties’ stipulated order concerning ESI
16
discovery. Feb. 18, 2015 ESI Order [Docket No. 235]. At that time, the patent claims in the case
17
were stayed. July 22, 2014 Order Staying Patent Claims [Docket No. 142]; April 19, 2016 Order
18
Lifting Stay [Docket No. 280]. On April 9, 2015, the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney bifurcated
19
Synopsys’ copyright claims from its patent claims. [Docket No. 280.] Discovery for the
20
copyright portion of the case closed on June 30, 2015. [Docket No. 33.] Fact discovery for the
21
patent portion of the case closes on July 15, 2016, and expert discovery closes on October 15,
22
2016. [Docket No. 291.]
23
The existing ESI discovery order allowed for eight custodians and ten search terms for
24
custodian-specific ESI, as well as eight custodians and ten search terms for email production
25
requests per producing party. Feb. 18, 2015 ESI Order at 2-3. The parties exhausted all custodian
26
and search terms permitted by the existing ESI order in discovery for the copyright portion of the
27
case. ESI Discovery Letter at 1.
28
ATopTech now moves to amend the existing ESI order to allow for additional ESI for the
1
patent portion of the case. Synopsys opposes ATopTech’s request and argues that no additional
2
custodian-specific ESI discovery should be allowed. ESI Discovery Letter at 4. Alternatively, if
3
such discovery is permitted, Synopsys requests that that the court limit it to email production for
4
three custodians and three search terms per custodian. Id. at 5.
5
This is the kind of dispute that the parties should be able to manage without court
6
intervention. In light of the impending July 15, 2016 fact discovery cut-off, the parties are ordered
7
to immediately meet and confer about a reasonable amount of ESI discovery for the patent portion
8
of the case. After meeting and conferring, if the parties are unable to reach agreement, each party
9
shall present its written proposal with its exact proposed language to amend the existing ESI Order
in the form of a proposed order by July 8, 2016. If the parties are unable to resolve this dispute
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
without court intervention, the court will be granting some additional ESI discovery for the patent
12
portion of the case. The parties shall only file their proposed orders; they shall not provide further
13
argument.
14
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 5, 2016
______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
United States Magistrate Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?