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

Filing 28

STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING E-DISCOVERY, re 20 Joint Case Management Statement filed by Dynetix Design Solutions, Inc. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on 3/12/2012. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2012)

1
2
3
4

LiLaw Inc., a Law Corporation
J. James Li (SBN 202855)
5050 El Camino Real, Suite 200
Los Altos, CA 94022
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Dynetix Design Solutions Inc.

5
6
7
8
9

CHRIS R. OTTENWELLER (CA BAR NO. 73649)
[e-mail]
I. NEEL CHATTERJEE (CA BAR NO. 173985)
[e-mail]
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, California 94025
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

10
11
12
13

BENJAMIN S. LIN (CA BAR NO. 232735)
[e-mail]
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
2050 Main Street, Suite 1100
Irvine, California 92614-8255
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

14
15

Attorneys for Defendant
SYNOPSYS, INC.

16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18
SAN JOSE DIVISION
19
20
21

DYNETIX DESIGN SOLUTIONS, INC., a
California corporation,
Plaintiff and Counterclaim
Defendant,

22

Case No. 5:11-CV-05973-PSG
STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING EDISCOVERY

23
v.
24
25
26

SYNOPSYS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
and DOES 1-50,
Defendant and Counterclaim
Plaintiff.

27
28
ORDER REGARDING E-DISCOVERY
CV11-05973-PSG

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff Dynetix Design Solutions, Inc. (“Dynetix”) and Defendant Synopsys, Inc.
(“Synopsys”) stipulate to the following Order Regarding E-discovery (the “Order”), based on the
Model Order Regarding E-Discovery in Patent Cases promulgated by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
1.

This Order supplements all other discovery rules and orders. It streamlines

electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) production to promote a “just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination” of this action, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1.
2.

This Order may be modified for good cause. The parties shall jointly submit any

proposed modifications within 30 days after the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 conference. If
the parties cannot resolve their disagreements regarding these modifications, the parties shall
submit their competing proposals and a summary of their dispute.
3.

Costs will be shifted for disproportionate ESI production requests pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Likewise, a party’s nonresponsive or dilatory discovery
tactics will be cost-shifting considerations.
4.

A party’s meaningful compliance with this Order and efforts to promote efficiency

and reduce costs will be considered in cost-shifting determinations.
5.

General ESI production requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and 45

shall not include metadata absent a showing of good cause. However, fields showing the date and
time that the document was sent and received, as well as the complete distribution list, shall
generally be included in the production.
6.

General ESI production requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and 45

shall not include email or other forms of electronic correspondence (collectively “email”). To
obtain email parties must propound specific email production requests.
7.

Email production requests shall only be propounded for specific issues, rather than

general discovery of a product or business.
8.

Email production requests shall be phased to occur after the parties have

exchanged initial disclosures and basic documentation about the patents, the prior art, the accused

28
-2-

ORDER REGARDING E-DISCOVERY
CV11-05973-PSG

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

instrumentalities, and the relevant finances. While this provision does not require the production
of such information, the Court encourages prompt and early production of this information to
promote efficient and economical streamlining of the case.
9.

Email production requests shall identify the custodian, search terms, and time

frame. The parties shall cooperate to identify the proper custodians, proper search terms and
proper timeframe.
10.

Each requesting party shall limit its email production requests to a total of five

custodians per producing party for all such requests. The parties may jointly agree to modify this
limit without the Court’s leave. The Court shall consider contested requests for up to five
additional custodians per producing party, upon showing a distinct need based on the size,
complexity, and issues of this specific case. Should a party serve email production requests for
additional custodians beyond the limits agreed to by the parties or granted by the Court pursuant
to this paragraph, the requesting party shall bear all reasonable costs caused by such additional
discovery.
11.

Each requesting party shall limit its email production requests to a total of five

search terms per custodian per party. The parties may jointly agree to modify this limit without
the Court’s leave. The Court shall consider contested requests for up to five additional search
terms per custodian, upon showing a distinct need based on the size, complexity, and issues of
this specific case. The search terms shall be narrowly tailored to particular issues. Should a party
serve email production requests with search terms beyond the limits agreed to by the parties or
granted by the Court pursuant to this paragraph, the requesting party shall bear all reasonable
costs caused by such additional discovery.
12. The receiving party shall not use ESI that the producing party asserts is attorney-client
privileged or work product protected to challenge the privilege or protection.
13. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), the inadvertent production of a
privileged or work product protected ESI is not a waiver in the pending case or in any other
federal or state proceeding.

28
-3-

ORDER REGARDING E-DISCOVERY
CV11-05973-PSG

1
2

14. The mere production of ESI in a litigation as part of a mass production shall not itself
constitute a waiver for any purpose.

3
4
5
6
Dated: February ___, 2012

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

7
8
By:
9
10

/s/ Chris R. Ottenweller
Chris R. Ottenweller
I. Neel Chatterjee
Benjamin S. Lin

11

Attorneys for Defendant
SYNOPSYS, INC.

12
13
14
15

Dated: February ___, 2012

LiLaw, Inc.

16
17

By:

/s/ J. James Li
J. James Li

18
Counsel for Plaintiff
DYNETIX DESIGN SOLUTIONS, INC.

19
20
21
22

FILER’S ATTESTATION

23

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, I attest under
penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from Chris R.
Ottenweller.

24
25
26
27
28

-4-

ORDER REGARDING E-DISCOVERY
CV11-05973-PSG

1

Dated: February 28, 2012

LiLaw, Inc.

2
3

By:

/s/ J. James Li
J. James Li

4
5

Attorneys for Plaintiff
DYNETIX DESIGN SOLUTIONS, INC.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Pursuant to the stipulation, the Order Regarding E-Discovery is hereby adopted by the
Court as part of the Case Management Order for this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated:

, 2012

________________________________
The Honorable Paul S. Grewal
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-

ORDER REGARDING E-DISCOVERY
CV11-05973-PSG