Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Pounce Consulting, Inc.

Filing 136

ORDER by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 58 Motion to Set Aside Default; denying 58 Motion to Quash; denying 70 Administrative Motion ; granting in part and denying in part 101 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 103 Motion for Sanctions; denying 106 Motion to Strike ; denying 107 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC.,

9

v.

ORDER RE HEARING HELD ON MAY
30, 2018

10

POUNCE CONSULTING, INC., et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-04732-PJH

Plaintiff,

8

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 58, 70, 101, 103, 106, 107

12
13

The motions ruled on below came on for hearing before this court on May 30,

14

2018. Plaintiff Cadence Design Systems, Inc. appeared through its counsel, Guy

15

Ruttenberg. Defendant Pounce Consulting, S.A. de C.V. (“Pounce Mexico”) appeared

16

through its counsel, Frederick Taylor. Having read the papers filed by the parties and

17

carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, good cause

18

appearing, and for the reasons stated at the hearing, the court rules as follows:

19

Pounce Mexico’s motion to quash service is DENIED. The court finds that plaintiff

20

effected service on Pounce Mexico through its CEO Roger Viera pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

21

P. 4(h) and Cal. Code. Civ. P. § 416.10(b). The court also finds that at the very least

22

Pounce Mexico was served pursuant to Cal. Code. Civ. P. § 415.20(a).

23

Pounce Mexico’s motion to set aside default is GRANTED. Plaintiff has failed to

24

rebut Pounce Mexico’s showing as to any of the three “good cause” factors. See Bandt

25

v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. of Fla., 653 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (listing factors).

26

“[J]udgment by default is a drastic step appropriate only in extreme circumstances; a

27

case should, whenever possible, be decided on the merits.” United States v. Signed

28

Pers. Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal

1
2
3
4

quotation marks omitted).
Pounce Mexico’s administrative motion for leave to file evidentiary objections
under separate cover is DENIED. Those objections are stricken.
Plaintiff’s administrative motion to seal documents filed in support of plaintiff’s sur-

5

reply is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5 and 7-

6

11, plaintiff filed five exhibits and its sur-reply under seal because those documents

7

contained information that defendant Pounce Consulting, Inc. (“Pounce Consulting”),

8

Thania Herrera, or third-party TableSafe, Inc. designated as “Confidential” under the

9

Protective Order. Pounce Consulting filed a declaration showing good cause to keep one
of those documents, Dkt. 101-8, Exhibit D, under seal. Kamanka v. City & County of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Honolulu, 447 F.3d, 1172, 1178-1179 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the court GRANTS

12

the motion as to that document and DENIES the motion as to the other documents.

13

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED.

14

Pounce Mexico’s motion to strike is DENIED.

15

Pounce Mexico’s administrative motion to seal a document filed in support of its

16

motion to strike is DENIED. No declaration was filed showing good cause for the

17

document to remain sealed.

18
19
20

All documents for which motions to seal have been denied must be filed in the
public docket within 7 days of the date of this order.
As stated at the hearing, Pounce Mexico shall file its answer within 21 days and

21

shall be permitted to take reasonable discovery. The parties shall submit a stipulated

22

modified case schedule within 14 days.

23

Lastly, the court again admonishes both parties for their conduct thus far in this

24

litigation, especially as to the parties’ apparent inability to meet and confer in good faith

25

and inability to resolve discovery disputes without judicial intervention. Going forward,

26

the parties are ORDERED to meet and confer about any discovery issues that arise and

27
28
2

1
2
3
4
5

to minimize the number of discovery disputes filed with Magistrate Judge Laporte.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 31, 2018
__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
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
3