Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965-116/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYNOPSYS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ATOPTECH, INC,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR)

ORDER RE: ESI DISCOVERY

Re: Dkt. No. 774

On June 24, 2016, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding their dispute over 

whether any additional ESI discovery should be permitted for the patent portion of this case. ESI 

Discovery Letter [Docket No. 774.] 

On February 18, 2015, the court entered the parties’ stipulated order concerning ESI 

discovery. Feb. 18, 2015 ESI Order [Docket No. 235]. At that time, the patent claims in the case 

were stayed. July 22, 2014 Order Staying Patent Claims [Docket No. 142]; April 19, 2016 Order 

Lifting Stay [Docket No. 280]. On April 9, 2015, the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney bifurcated 

Synopsys’ copyright claims from its patent claims. [Docket No. 280.] Discovery for the 

copyright portion of the case closed on June 30, 2015. [Docket No. 33.] Fact discovery for the 

patent portion of the case closes on July 15, 2016, and expert discovery closes on October 15, 

2016. [Docket No. 291.] 

The existing ESI discovery order allowed for eight custodians and ten search terms for 

custodian-specific ESI, as well as eight custodians and ten search terms for email production 

requests per producing party. Feb. 18, 2015 ESI Order at 2-3. The parties exhausted all custodian 

and search terms permitted by the existing ESI order in discovery for the copyright portion of the 

case. ESI Discovery Letter at 1. 

ATopTech now moves to amend the existing ESI order to allow for additional ESI for the 

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 785 Filed 07/05/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

patent portion of the case. Synopsys opposes ATopTech’s request and argues that no additional 

custodian-specific ESI discovery should be allowed. ESI Discovery Letter at 4. Alternatively, if 

such discovery is permitted, Synopsys requests that that the court limit it to email production for 

three custodians and three search terms per custodian. Id. at 5. 

This is the kind of dispute that the parties should be able to manage without court 

intervention. In light of the impending July 15, 2016 fact discovery cut-off, the parties are ordered 

to immediately meet and confer about a reasonable amount of ESI discovery for the patent portion 

of the case. After meeting and conferring, if the parties are unable to reach agreement, each party 

shall present its written proposal with its exact proposed language to amend the existing ESI Order 

in the form of a proposed order by July 8, 2016. If the parties are unable to resolve this dispute 

without court intervention, the court will be granting some additional ESI discovery for the patent 

portion of the case. The parties shall only file their proposed orders; they shall not provide further 

argument. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 785 Filed 07/05/16 Page 2 of 2