Synopsys, Inc. v. Real Intent, Inc.

Filing 123

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE DKT. 111 . Signed by Judge Susan van Keulen on 8/23/22. (jhf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2022)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SYNOPSYS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 20-cv-02819-EJD (SVK)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 111
REAL INTENT, INC.,
Defendant.
Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Statement re Discovery Dispute for Real Intent, Inc.’s

13

Interrogatory No. 2. Dkt. 111. In brief, the Parties dispute the sufficiency of Plaintiff Synopsys,

14

Inc.’s (“Synopsys”) response to a contention interrogatory. See id. The Parties appeared before

15

the undersigned for a hearing on August 23, 2022, where the Court ruled as follows:

16

Synopsys’ objection to Defendant Real Intent, Inc.’s (“Real Intent”) contention

17

Interrogatory No. 2 on the grounds that it is premature is OVERRULED, except as noted

18

otherwise below, as a fair amount of discovery has taken place in this action. However, there is no

19

firm date for the close of fact discovery and discovery remains ongoing, therefore Real Intent’s

20
21
22
23
24
25

request that Synopsys be restricted to its current responses going forward is DENIED. Pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, Synopsys must respond to contention Interrogatory
No. 2 with all of the information it has to date and must work diligently to supplement its
response(s) as needed. To the extent Synopsys does not supplement its response to contention
Interrogatory No. 2 as discovery progresses, its current response will stand.
Real Intent raises five specific issues with Synopsys’ current discovery responses. The
Court addresses each in turn:

26

1. Syntax – The Court finds Synopsys’s response with respect to the “syntax”

27
sufficient at this time.
28

1

2. Defined Terms – Synopsys must define the terms “collective” and “compilation”

2

and provide a list of the claimed compilations to Real Intent in a supplemental

3

response by September 6, 2022.
3. Derivative Works – Real Intent’s request that Synopsys explain the factual bases

4
5

for its contention that Real Intent created unlawful derivative works is premature at

6

this juncture. As such, the request is DENIED without prejudice.

7

4. Disputed Elements – The Court finds Synopsys’ response sufficient.
5. Manuals – The Court finds Synopsys’ response sufficient to the extent Synopsys

8

identifies specific page numbers in the manuals. Real Intent’s request for a “side-

9

by-side chart” is DENIED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

In the Parties’ joint submission and at the hearing, the Parties indicated that they are
continuing to meet and confer regarding the production of additional source code by Real Intent,
which may impact Synopsys’ responses to the foregoing. The Court reminded the Parties of their
ongoing obligations to meet and confer in good faith to resolve this and all other discovery
disputes.

15
SO ORDERED.
16
Dated: August 23, 2022
17
18
19

SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2