Synopsys, Inc. v. Agate Logic USA, Inc. et al

Filing 16

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 15 Ex Parte Application (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2016)

1
2

UNITED STATES D
DISTRICT C
COURT

3

NORTHER DISTRIC OF CAL
N
RN
CT
LIFORNIA

4
5

SY
YNOPSYS, INC.,

7
8
9

Case No. 16-cv-0596
6-PJH

Plaintiff,

6
v.

ORDER D
DENYING A
APPLICATI
ION FOR
ORDER T PRESER
TO
RVE EVIDE
ENCE

AGATE LOG USA, IN
GIC
NC., et al.,
Defendants.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Before the court is plaintiff’s “ex parte a
s
application f an order to preserv
for
ve

13

evidence.” Plaintiff seek an order “expressly requiring that Agate p
ks
preserve for forensic

14

analysis the computers and devices that it has used to ci
c
a
s
s
ircumvent the access control

15

me
easures put in place to protect Sy
t
o
ynopsys’s c
confidential and proprietary softw
ware.”

16

The co also no
ourt
otes that, ye
esterday, on February 4, 2016, pl
n
laintiff filed a motion

17

for a tempora restraining order, fo an order to show ca
r
ary
or
ause re preliminary inju
unction, an

18

ord of impoundment, and a protec
der
a
ctive order. The court set that m
.
t
motion for a hearing to

19

be held on Fe
ebruary 17, 2016.

20

In light of the fact that the dis
t
spute betwe the par
een
rties has be ongoing since at
een
g

21

lea June 4, 2015 (see Dkt. 5, Ex. D), the cou finds tha the need for an evid
ast
urt
at
dence

22

pre
eservation order can be addresse at the up
o
b
ed
pcoming mo
otion hearin Until th
ng.
hen,

23

def
fendants’ already-exis
a
sting duty to preserve evidence w suffice. See, e.g., Fed. R.
o
will

24

Civ P. 37(e). According plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
v.
gly,
s

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: Febru
uary 5, 2016
6
__
__________
__________
__________
_______
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge