Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc

Filing 792

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 14, 2016. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2016)

RT

R NIA

TELEPHONE: [phone] • FACSIMILE: +1.415.875.5700
Direct Number: [phone]
[e-mail]

A

H

ER

hesney

LI

NO

.C
axine M
Judge M

555 CALIFORNIA STREET, 26TH FLOOR • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104

FO

S
UNIT
ED

D*
DENIE

RT
U
O

ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

Dated: July 14, 2016
*Insufficient notice and improper form of request.
VIA CM/ECF

July 14, 2016

Hon. Maxine M. Chesney
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Pretrial Conference in Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-02965-MMC

Re:

Dear Judge Chesney:
Synopsys respectfully requests that the Court schedule a pretrial conference on Tuesday,
July 19, 2016 at 3:00 p.m. in anticipation of the parties’ July 25 bench trial on ATopTech’s
equitable estoppel defense.
A pretrial conference is warranted because ATopTech has declined to identify the nonATopTech witnesses it actually intends to call at trial. In its list of witnesses likely to be called at
trial, ATopTech has identified eight former and current Synopsys employees and independent
contractors. See ECF No. 783-1 at 44-50, 72-74. 1 But seven of these witnesses were never
disclosed by ATopTech in the copyright case and its belated designation of such witnesses
violates the parties’ September 2015 stipulation. As set forth in Synopsys’ pending Motion in
Limine No. 2, ATopTech should be precluded from calling these previously undisclosed
witnesses at trial. A pretrial conference will allow the Court to decide Synopsys’ pending in
limine motion to ensure an orderly trial.
A pretrial conference also will provide the opportunity to establish time limits for
opening statements and for each party to present its case. And, to the extent ATopTech is
permitted to examine previously undisclosed witnesses, a pretrial conference should be held to
settle on the identity and order of witnesses that will actually be called at trial. While ATopTech
has acknowledged that it does not intend to call all the non-ATopTech witnesses identified on its
list, it has declined to provide Synopsys with a final list. For the sake of efficient trial
management, and out of respect for the professional schedules of Synopsys’ former and current
employees, a pretrial conference should be held to determine the parties’ final witness lists.
1

The non-ATopTech witnesses include Dr. Dwight Hill, Noel Strader, Richard Goldman,
Stephen Meier, Mark Lewis, Sridhar Panchapakesan, Mark B. Lefevre, and Mustafa Celik.

ALKHOBAR • AM STERDAM • ATL ANTA • BEIJING • BOSTON • BRISBANE • BR USSEL S • CHICAGO • C LEVEL A ND • COLUMBUS • DALL A S
DETROIT • DUBAI • DÜSSELDORF • FRANKFUR T • HONG KONG • HOUS TON • I RVINE • JEDDAH • LONDON • LO S ANGELES • MADRID
MEXICO CIT Y • MIAMI • MIL AN • MINNEAPOLIS • MOSCOW • MUNICH • NEW YORK • PARIS • PER TH • PITTSBURGH • RIYADH
SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SÃO PAULO • SHANGHAI • SILICON VALLEY • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TAIP EI • TOKYO • WASHING TON

Hon. Maxine M. Chesney
July 14, 2016
Page 2
Respectfully submitted,
JONES DAY
/s/Robert A. Mittelstaedt
Robert A. Mittelstaedt
ATTORNEYS FOR SYNOPSYS, INC.