Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc

Filing 910

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NOVEMBER 16, 2016 ORDER. Defendant's motion is denied, without prejudice to defendant's filing a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, to be presented to Magistrate Judge Ryu. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

SYNOPSYS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
v.

12
13

Case No. 13-cv-02965-MMC

ATOPTECH, INC,
Defendant.

14

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR RELIEF FROM NOVEMBER 16,
2016 ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 904

15
Before the Court is defendant’s motion, filed December 2, 2016, for relief from a

16
17

nondispositive pretrial order of Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu, filed November 16,

18

2016.

19

Defendant’s motion is, however, based on evidence not previously submitted to

20

Magistrate Judge Ryu, specifically, an exhibit “created by [defendant’s counsel] with

21

summary information about the asserted patents in the case.” (See Marsh Dec. ¶ 12;

22

see also Mot. at 1:21-23 (“Although [defendant] believes that the November 16 order is

23

clearly erroneous . . . should the Court prefer, [defendant] respectfully requests leave to

24

file a motion for reconsideration of the November 16 before Judge Ryu.”).) As a

25

consequence, defendant’s motion is, in essence, a motion for reconsideration based on

26

newly-offered evidence.

27
28

Accordingly, defendant’s motion is hereby DENIED, without prejudice to
defendant’s filing a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, to be presented

1

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

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: December 8, 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