Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04669/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04669-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

28 1

 For purposes of convenience, the Court refers to Synopsys and the Customer Defendants as

"Defendants" collectively.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYNOPSYS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICOH CO., LTD.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

RICOH CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

AEROFLEX, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-03-2289 MJJ (EMC)

No. C-03-4669 MJJ (EMC)

CORRECTED ORDER RE MEET AND

CONFER ON JUNE 26, 2006

Having reviewed the parties' briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby orders

the parties to further meet and confer regarding Ricoh's motion to quash and Synopsys and the

Customer Defendants'1 motion to compel. Although there may be legitimate disputes with respect to

some of the issues, the parties should be able to resolve a number of the disputes. 

As the Court previously informed the parties, this meet and confer shall take place on June

26, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., in the courthouse and the presence of lead trial counsel is required. The

parties should expect to meet and confer all day if necessary. A joint letter to the Court should then

Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 515 Filed 06/23/06 Page 1 of 5
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

28

2

be filed by June 30,2006. The parties are forewarned that, in the future, the Court may order a client

representative in addition to lead trial counsel to attend any and all meet and confer discussions. 

The Court provides the following guidance and comments to assist the parties in their meet

and confer efforts. The Court notes that, as a general matter, it is not a defense to argue that the

other party is guilty of the same behavior.

1. Completeness of Document Productions

 This is a dispute that the parties should be able to resolve on their own. Although the

undersigned is not the presiding judge in this case, the parties are advised to review the undersigned's

standing order, which states in relevant part as follows:

In responding to requests for documents and materials under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 34, all parties shall affirmatively state in a written response

served on all other parties the full extent to which they will produce

materials and shall, promptly after the production, confirm in writing

that they have produced all such materials so described that are

locatable after a diligent search of all locations at which such materials

might plausibly exist. It shall not be sufficient to object and/or to state

that “responsive” materials will be or have been produced.

The parties are ordered to comply with this provision. To the extent Defendants have concerns about

specific categories of documents (e.g., documents related to the TI negotiations), the parties should

discuss further the search for documents that was conducted.

2. Pre-Filing Communications Between Clients and Counsel

As a preliminary matter, it is not clear to the Court what the universe of these documents is. 

For example, are these documents only "pre-filing investigation and documents relating to

preparation of the complaint"? Reply at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). If so, have the parties

discussed what is the "start date" for such documents (e.g., documents dated before the filing of the

complaint but after x date). And if so, have the parties discussed the utility of logging such

documents?

Furthermore, it appears that Defendants' concern here is not communications between clients

and counsel per se but rather communications that involve clients and counsel plus persons who may

be characterized as third parties (e.g., Mr. Shindo). If that is the case, then the parties should discuss

whether they can come to an agreement about a more limited privilege log.

Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 515 Filed 06/23/06 Page 2 of 5
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

28

3

3. Privilege Log

The parties should be able to resolve this dispute on their own. If Ricoh has withheld any

responsive document on the basis of privilege, that document should be listed on a privilege log. 

Thus, for example, if Ricoh is withholding documents related to the TI negotiations, see Reply at 10,

those documents should be identified and described on a privilege log. Privilege logs must be

sufficiently detailed and informative to justify the privilege. A document is not adequately described

on a privilege log if, e.g., it is simply described as "legal advice re '432 patent." Such a description

must provide enough information for the opposing party to challenge the assertion of privilege.

3. Shindo Memo and Hoffman-Shindo Document

The parties have not adequately discussed these documents, especially since Defendants

appear to have been unaware of the latter document until Ricoh filed its opposition to the motion to

compel. Regarding the latter document, the parties should be sure to discuss the issue of common

legal interest. 

As for the former document, the parties do not even seem to agree on (1) whether or not Mr.

Takada is a lawyer and (2) whether the document discusses only legal strategy and the like or

whether it also summarizes facts. Such a lack of agreement suggests that the meet and confer has

not been adequate.

4. In Camera Review of Prosecution Files

This Court's decision in Genentech, Inc. v. Insmed, Inc., 233 F.R.D. 556 (N.D. Cal. 2006),

should provide the parties with guidance as to the standard required for in camera review when a

claim of inequitable conduct has been made.

5. KBSC and Kobayashi Documents

With respect to the issue of possession, custody, or control, the Court agrees with those

courts that have taken a broader approach to control. That is, "the word control does not require that

the party have legal ownership or actual physical possession of the documents at issue; rather

documents are considered to be under a party's control when that party has the right, authority, or

practical ability to obtain the documents from a non-party to the action." Bank of New York v.

Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 515 Filed 06/23/06 Page 3 of 5
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

28

4

Meridien Biao Bank Tanzania, 171 F.R.D. 135, 146 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (internal quotation marks

omitted).

6. Supplemented Discovery Requests

a. RFAs

I. Number of RFAs

To the extent Ricoh argues that there are an excessive number of requests, the Court has

already given the parties guidance as to how to "count" interrogatories. As for RFAs, under the

Federal Rules, there is no limit to the number that may be served, although here the parties have

agreed to a limit of 280. Whether the parties contemplated that the counting rules for interrogatories

should be applied to RFAs is not clear and is not the crucial question. Ultimately, the question is

whether the RFAs are unduly burdensome. That is the purpose of setting limits on the number of

discovery requests. 

ii. Incorporation by Reference

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a) provides that, "when good faith requires that a party

qualify an answer or deny only a part of the matter of which an admission is requested, the party

shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder." Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a). A

general reference to infringement contentions or an expert report is not sufficiently specific.

iii. Expert Opinion

By this time, Ricoh's expert reports on infringement and damages should have been provided

so the argument that a request seeks an expert opinion should largely be moot. As noted above, a

general reference to an expert report is not sufficiently specific in a response to an RFA.

iv. "Inartfully Drafted or Incomprehensible" RFAs

The Court is not interested in semantic games. The parties should have discussed any

"inartfully drafted or incomprehensible" RFAs during their previous meet and confers to eliminate

any misunderstandings or confusion about the RFAs. Opp'n at 21. This is exactly the kind of

objection that should be resolved during a meet and confer.

v. Prior Art

Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 515 Filed 06/23/06 Page 4 of 5
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

28

5

The Court is not interested in semantic games. The bottom line is that Defendants have

stated that these RFAs simply ask Ricoh to admit whether specific claim elements are found in

specific prior art references. The parties should meet and confer to determine whether Ricoh will

respond to these RFAs in light of this statement.

b. Interrogatories

I. References to Documents

References to documents should be sufficiently specific so that Defendants are able to

determine which documents are being referenced. General references to documents are not

adequate. If Defendants believe that even "pinpoint" references to, e.g., infringement contentions are

inadequate, they should explain why.

ii. Vague and Ambiguous

See #6(a)(iv), supra.

7. Kobayashi Deposition

In general, to the extent that there is newly discovered information, the Court shall not

preclude a continuation of the deposition. As to whether Ricoh has control over Dr. Kobayashi, see

#5 above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2006

 

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 515 Filed 06/23/06 Page 5 of 5