Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Syntronic AB et al

Filing 68

ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE NO. 2 granting 64 Discovery Letter Brief. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/16/2021)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Case No. 21-cv-03610-SI
ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE
NO. 2

v.
SYNTRONIC AB, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 64

Defendants.

14
15

On November 4, 2021, the parties filed a joint discovery dispute letter. Dkt. No. 64. The

16

parties dispute whether the parties’ protective order may be amended such that plaintiff may

17

designate various documents as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.”

18

On May 13, 2021, plaintiff Cadence Design Systems, Inc. (“Cadence”) filed this action for

19

federal copyright infringement, circumvention of copyright protection systems, and breach of contract

20

against defendants. Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff alleges it detected unauthorized use of its software on at least 64

21

Syntronic machines. FAC ¶¶ 138, 154; Dkt. No. 43-1 at ¶¶ 12, 18. At the crux of this dispute are

22

documents evidencing exactly how Cadence knows about these alleged 64 Syntronic machines. The

23

complaint alleges Cadence implements sophisticated, proprietary monitoring tools to curb pirated or

24

unauthorized use of its programs, which it refers to as its “phone-home system.” (FAC ¶¶ 111-13).

25

When the system detects unauthorized use, it “phones home” information pertaining to the offending

26

machine. Id. Candence wants to designate all documents regarding the details of its “phone-home-

27

system” as confidential attorneys’ eyes only to prevent the possibility of work-arounds being

28

constructed. Dkt. No. 64 at 1.

1

The Court finds plaintiff’s concerns well founded and therefore GRANTS plaintiff’s request for

2

Exhibit A (Dkt. No. 64-1) be entered as the operative Protective Order in this case, replacing the former

3

Protective Order entered on November 3, 2021 at docket number 63.

4
5

However, in the event that defendants believe they need to review specific and narrowly tailored
documents with their clients in order to put on a defense, the Court ORDERS the following process:

6

(1) If defendants’ attorneys identify documents they need to show their clients in order to put on a

7

defense, defendants’ attorneys must first meet and confer in person or over video conference

8

with plaintiff’s counsel to work out an agreement;

(2) If no agreement can be reached, the parties may submit the discrete and narrowly tailored

10

documents for the Court’s review along with a discovery dispute letter as laid out in the Court’s

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

standing order.

12
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 16, 2021
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2