Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-06467/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-06467-110/pdf.json

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYNOPSYS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 12-6467 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE

PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE

JUDGE

Before the Court is plaintiff Synopsys, Inc’s (“Synopsys”) “Motion for Relief from

Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge,” filed June 16, 2015, by which Synopsys

requests this Court set aside Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu’s order of June 2, 2015

(“Order”), to the extent such order imposes sanctions for Synopsys’ violation of the parties’

stipulated protective order. Specifically, Synopsys seeks an order setting aside those

portions of the Order that “(a) admonish Synopsys’ attorneys at the law firm of Sidley

Austin LLP,” or (b) state that “it is appropriate for Mentor to withdraw its approval of [Adel]

Assaad to view any of Mentor’s confidential information.” (See Mot. At 1:4-6.) Defendant

Mentor Graphics Corporation (“Mentor”) has filed opposition, to which Synopsys has

replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the

motion, the Court hereby rules as follows.

According to Synopsys, the Order should be vacated because, inter alia, it imposes

sanctions based solely on the court’s inherent power but makes no specific finding of bad

Case 3:12-cv-06467-MMC Document 490 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 3
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

faith. “[A] specific finding of bad faith must precede any sanction under the court’s inherent

powers.” See Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation and

citation omitted). As Synopsys correctly points out, the Order imposed sanctions based

solely on the court’s inherent power (see Order at 6:13-14, 7:7-8 (noting “Mentor does not

contend that Synopsys’ violation of the [protective order] falls within any of the grounds for

sanctions under Rule 37”; stating “[t]he court now invokes its inherent authority in making

determinations regarding Mentor’s motion for sanctions”), but made no specific finding of

bad faith, and, in fact, appeared to find there was no bad faith (see Order at 4:9 (noting

“there is some sense” in Synopsys interpretation of the subject discovery order)). 

Mentor, in opposition, argues that the record supports a finding of bad faith, and that

the Magistrate Judge could have imposed sanctions pursuant to Rule 16 or Rule 37 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which rules, according to Mentor, do not require a

specific finding of bad faith. In its argument before the Magistrate Judge, however, Mentor

did not contend Synopsys’ conduct was sanctionable under either such rule, and, indeed,

did not contend the challenged acts, albeit characterized by Mentor as “egregious[]” and a

“conscious . . . choice” (see Joint Statement of Unresolved Issues, filed Nov. 6, 2014, at 5),

were committed in “bad faith”; nor did the facts presented require such a finding. In sum, 

regardless of what a hypothetical judicial officer could have done, here, as discussed

above, the Magistrate Judge made no finding of bad faith nor did she rule in reliance on

any authority other than inherent power. 

Consequently, although the Magistrate Judge carefully considered the factual record

and the parties’ respective legal positions, declined to grant any of the more severe

sanctions sought by Mentor and, instead, endeavored to tailor the relief granted to avoid

any undue burden on Synopsys’ ability to prosecute its case, the Order must be set aside

to the extent sanctions were imposed. The challenged admonition, however, does not

constitute a sanction, but, rather, the Magistrate Judge’s well-founded allocation of

responsibility for the violation under consideration.

Accordingly, Synopsys’ motion for relief from is hereby GRANTED in PART and

Case 3:12-cv-06467-MMC Document 490 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 3
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

DENIED in PART as follows:

1. To the extent Synopsys seeks an order setting aside that portion of the Order

allowing Mentor to withdraw its approval of Adel Assaad to view Mentor’s confidential

information, the motion is GRANTED; 

2. To the extent Mentor seeks an order setting aside that portion of the Order

admonishing counsel, the motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2015 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-06467-MMC Document 490 Filed 07/17/15 Page 3 of 3