Dynetix Design Solutions, Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc.

Filing 259

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting in part and denying in part 235 Motion to Compel (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

DYNETIX DESIGN SOLUTIONS INC., A
California corporation,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
)
SYNOPSYS INC., a Delaware corporation, and )
DOES 1-50
)
)
Defendants.

17
18
19

Case No.: 11-CV-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING DYNETIX’S
SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL
(Re: Docket No. 235)

In this patent infringement suit, Plaintiff Dynetix Design Solutions Inc. (“Dynetix”) moves
to compel Defendant Synopsys Inc. (“Synopsys”) to produce certain design specifications, the
folder structure for documents already produced, and version control information.1 Synopsys

20
21
22

opposes.2 On February 26, 2013, the parties appeared for hearing. Having reviewed the papers
and considered the arguments of counsel, the court GRANTS-IN-PART Dynetix’s motion.

23
24
25
26
1

See Docket No. 235.

2

See Docket No. 246.

27
28

1

Case No.: 11-CV-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART DYNETIX’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

I.

1

BACKGROUND

2

On December 5, 2011, Dynetix filed suit against Synopsys, alleging VCS Multicore

3

infringes a number of claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,466,898 (“the ‘898 patent’”).3 Synopsys

4

counterclaimed, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,784,593 (“the ‘593 patent”) and U.S.

5

Patent No. 5,706,473 (“the ‘473 patent”).4

6
7

During the course of this litigation, several discovery disputes have arisen regarding
Dynetix’s suit against Synopsys. The discovery disputes that are the subject of the instant motion

8
9

are outlined below.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

1.

11

Dynetix first requested all documents related to “the design, research, development, and

12

release” of VCS Multicore, VCS MX, and VCS Cloud.5 In deposing two Synopsys employees,

13

Pallab Dasgupta (“Dasgupta”) and Jatinder Goraya (“Goraya”), Dynetix learned that development

14

Development Specifications

specifications that may have existed for all three projects.6 Dasgupta testified specifically that “any

15
16

project would have some specifications,” and listed requirement specifications, design

17

specifications, and implementation specifications.7 Goraya also testified that he had seen

18

requirement specifications for VCS Multicore, but did not remember seeing any design

19

specifications.8 On August 3, 2012, Synopsys produced a large set of technical documents which

20

included VCS Multicore specifications.9 On December 13, 2012, Dynetix informed Synopsys it

21
22

3

See Docket No. 1.

23

4

See Docket No. 58.

24

5

See Docket No. 235 at 2.

25

6

See Docket No. 235-1, Ex. A; Docket No. 235-1 Ex. D.

26

7

See Docket No. 235-1, Ex. A.

27

8

See Docket No. 235-1 Ex. D.

28

9

See Docket No. 249, Ex. D-O.
2

Case No.: 11-CV-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART DYNETIX’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

1

did not believe the production contained any technical specifications.10 Synopsys then identified

2

some of the produced specifications by Bates number,11 but Dynetix maintains that no technical

3

specifications had been produced.12

4

2.

5

Dynetix requested documents from Synopsys’s Multicore Wiki page, a server location

6
7
8
9

Wiki Page Folder Structure

where the multicore team members share the project-related documents (the “Multicore Wiki”).13
Although Synopsys conceded the relevancy of these documents and provided them to Dynetix,14
Dynetix insists these documents be produced together with folder structure information.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

3.

Version Control Information for Source Code

11

Synopsys uses a source code repository to store the VCS source code and log any changes

12

made to the source code.15 Synopsys produced the source code for each release of VCS Multicore,

13

but without version control information.16 Dynetix objected, insisting the version control

14
information is necessary. The parties subsequently conferred via telephone but could not come to
15
16

an agreement.
II.

17

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any

18
19

LEGAL STANDARDS

party's claim or defense.17 At the discovery stage, information is relevant if it appears reasonably

20
21

10

See Docket No. 249, Ex. P; see Docket No. 235-1, Ex. H.

22

11

See Docket No. 249, Ex. Q.

23

12

See Docket No. 249, Ex. S.

24

13

See Docket No. 235-1, Ex. A.

25

14

See id. at ¶ 2.

26

15

See Docket No. 235-1, Ex. F.

27

16

See Docket No. 249 ¶ 6.

28

17

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.
3

Case No.: 11-CV-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART DYNETIX’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

1

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.18 The court must limit the frequency or

2

extent of discovery if it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, it can be obtained from another

3

more convenient source, or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely

4

benefit.19 Additionally, “the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter

5

involved in the action” upon a showing of good cause. 20

6
7
8
9

Regarding electronically stored information, a party need not provide discovery from
sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. 21
The party from whom discovery is sought bears the burden of showing undue burden or cost.22 If

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

the party seeking discovery shows good cause, the court may nonetheless choose to order

11

discovery.23

12

III.

13

DISCUSSION

1. Development Specifications

14
Dynetix asks the Court to compel Synopsys to produce development specifications for all
15
16

three projects, or to certify under oath that to the best of its knowledge, no additional development

17

specifications have been found after a diligent search and they have not been intentionally deleted

18

or otherwise destroyed. Dynetix believes additional specifications exist, but have not been

19

produced, and claims that the depositions of Dasgupta and others show that Synopsys might have

20
21
22
18

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.

19

See id.

20

See id.

21

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B)

22

See id.

23

See id.

23
24
25
26
27
28

4

Case No.: 11-CV-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART DYNETIX’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

1
2

destroyed or concealed them. Synopsys argues that not every project has design specifications and
it has already produced all development specifications in its possession.
There is no question that development specifications for all three projects are highly

3
4

relevant. Further, Dynetix has provided substantial information suggesting that Synopsys’

5

production may be incomplete.24 As a result, the court finds it appropriate to compel Synopsys to

6

produce any outstanding specifications for VCS Multicore, VCS MX, and VCS Cloud. If

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Synopsys finds no additional documents exist after conducting a reasonable search, it shall simply
amend its response to Dynetix’s request to say as much, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)
and 11(a).

11

2. Wiki Page Folder Structure

12
13
14

Dynetix moves to compel Synopsys to produce all of the original folder structure of the
Multicore Wiki page, arguing the already-provided Wiki page should have been produced as they
are kept “in the usual course of business.”25 Synopsys disagrees, contending information of the

15
16
17

folder structure is metadata under the parties’ stipulated e-discovery order and Dynetix has not
shown good cause to order production.26
Even if this information constitutes metadata, Dynetix has shown good cause to require

18
19

Synopsys to produce the organizational structure. As noted above, Dynetix has provided evidence

20

suggesting there are additional specifications not yet produced. The Wiki page folder structure

21

may serve to identify any missing production. Synopsys has not alleged that production of the

22
folder structure would be overly burdensome or protected under privilege. Indeed, Synopsys
23
24
24

25
26

For example, Dynetix points to a produced document which appears to show that as of 2010,
Synopsys had already provided technical specifications of VCS Cloud to some customers for
review. See Docket No. 250, Ex. B.
25

See id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i)).

26

See Docket No. 28 at 2.

27
28

5

Case No.: 11-CV-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART DYNETIX’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

1

represents that it has already provided the entire contents of the Multicore Wiki page, so the court

2

is hard-pressed to find any issues of privilege or secrecy.

3

3. Version Control Information for Source Code

4
5
6
7
8
9

Dynetix further moves to compel Synopsys to produce the version control information for
all of the previously provided source code. Dynetix argues the information is relevant to rebutting
the testimony of Synopsys’ expert, Mr. Dasgupta, regarding the hMatis autopartitioning code. It
also states that the revision history is relevant to the issue of willful infringement – it may verify
Synopsys’s denial of the existence of the Multicore project in June 2006.
Synopsys offers little to counter Dynetix’s arguments of relevancy, except to argue that

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

some of the information sought by Dynetix might be available from the original source code.

12

Instead, Synopsys emphasizes that production of the version control information in compliance

13

with the source code provisions of the protective order would require numerous man-hours.27

14
Moreover, Synopsys has identified a less burdensome means for Dynetix to access this information
15
16

– through a verified interrogatory response. In light of the burden demonstrated by Synopsys from

17

producing the requested version control information, the court finds that a verified interrogatory

18

response offers a more reasonable alternative for verifying Synopsys’ claims regarding

19

autopartitioning and willful infringement. Dynetix may propound an interrogatory on the questions

20

of when and by whom certain changes to the source code were made.

21

IV.

CONCLUSION

22
No later than March 29, 2013, Synopsys shall conduct a reasonable and diligent search and
23
24

produce any outstanding specifications relating to the “the design, research, development, and

25

release” of VCS Multicore, VCS MX, and VCS Cloud. If no specifications are outstanding,

26

Synopsys shall amend its response to certify that after a reasonable and diligent search, all

27

specifications have been produced. By this same date, Synopsys shall produce the Multicore Wiki

28

27

See Docket No. 247.
6

Case No.: 11-CV-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART DYNETIX’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

1
2
3
4

page with its original folder structure, and respond to any interrogatory on source code changes
served by Dynetix no later than March 22, 2013. All other requested relief is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 7, 2013

5

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7

Case No.: 11-CV-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART DYNETIX’S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL