Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04669/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04669-34/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

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)

ORDER RE SYNOPSYS AND

CUSTOMER DEFENDANTS' REQUEST

FOR CLARIFICATION

(Docket No. 385 in C-03-2289; Docket No.

526 in C-03-4669)

Synopsys and the Customer Defendants (collectively, "Defendants") filed a letter on July 5,

2006, asking for clarification of the Court's order of the same date. More specifically, "Defendants

seek clarification regarding what action must be taken by Ricoh with respect to the 26 boxes returned

from Dickstein Shapiro to the storage facility in Mountain View, California." Defs.' Letter of 7/5/06,

at 1. 

In its order, the Court instructed counsel for Ricoh to re-review the 23,000 documents that it

imaged but did not produce from the 26 boxes. Defendants ask the Court to "clarify its Order to

require Ricoh's counsel to inspect the entire contents of these 26 boxes (and not just the imaged

pages)." Id. Defendants argue that the entire contents of the 26 boxes should be re-examined

Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 532 Filed 07/12/06 Page 1 of 2
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

because the initial review of the boxes was done by Ricoh's counsel before (1) "all of the relevant

issues had been identified (such as the Paradyne, inventorship and ownership issues . . . or even

claim construction), (2) "any document requests had been served by Synopsys," and (3) "all of

Defendants' document requests had been served." Id.

In response, Ricoh argues that its counsel should have to re-review only the 23,000

documents and not all of the contents of the 26 boxes.

There is no dispute that, per the Court's previous order, counsel for Ricoh must re-review the

23,000 documents that were pulled from the 26 boxes and imaged (though not produced). The only

question is whether counsel should also be ordered to re-review those documents contained in the 26

boxes that were not pulled by counsel for Ricoh in its initial "broad brush" relevance review. The

Court shall not outright order Ricoh's counsel to re-review those particular documents. However,

because Defendants raise a legitimate concern and because the KBSC documents are potentially very

important, the Court shall require counsel for Ricoh to include as part of its declaration a statement

that all responsive documents from the 26 boxes -- including those documents that were not initially

pulled -- have been produced or identified on a privilege log. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2006

 

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 532 Filed 07/12/06 Page 2 of 2