Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc

Filing 861

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Plaintiff's motion is denied, without prejudice to plaintiff's filing a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, to be presented to Magistrate Judge Ryu. Plaintiff's administrative motion to file exhibits under seal is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 10/05/16. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

SYNOPSYS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Case No. 13-cv-02965-MMC

v.
ATOPTECH, INC,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
Re: Dkt. No. 852

14
15

Before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of

16

Magistrate Judge, filed September 30, 2016, by which plaintiff objects to Magistrate

17

Judge Donna M. Ryu’s order of September 16, 2016, denying plaintiff’s motion for leave

18

to amend its infringement contentions.

19

Plaintiff’s motion for relief is based on evidence not previously submitted to

20

Magistrate Judge Ryu, specifically, (1) a declaration of Dr. Matthew Guthaus, dated

21

September 30, 2016, and (2) an exhibit “providing further detail to” an exhibit previously

22

filed by defendant in support of its opposition to plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend

23

infringement contentions. As a consequence, plaintiff’s motion for relief is, in essence, a

24

motion for reconsideration based on newly-offered evidence.

25

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave is hereby DENIED, without prejudice to

26

plaintiff’s filing a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, to be presented to

27

Magistrate Judge Ryu. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(2).

28

In light of the above, plaintiff’s administrative motion to file exhibits to its motion for

1

relief under seal is hereby DENIED as moot.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: October 5, 2016
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

6
7
8
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
2