Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-02289/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-02289-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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 JOINT LETTER OF

NOVEMBER 7, 2005

On November 7, 2005, the parties filed a joint letter regarding a new discovery dispute. In

essence, Ricoh asks that the Court order Synopsys to provide Ricoh (more specifically, its attorneys

and experts) with access to an online customer-oriented knowledge base named SolvNET.

Based on the representations in the joint letter, both parties are guilty of having inadequately

met and conferred about the discovery dispute. The Court therefore orders that the parties further

meet and confer regarding the dispute. The parties are forewarned that, if they continue to

demonstrate that they cannot meet and confer in good faith prior to raising a discovery dispute with

the Court, both risk being subject to sanctions. Moreover, the Court may in the future require the

Case 5:03-cv-02289-JW Document 275 Filed 11/09/05 Page 1 of 3
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

parties to meet and confer in person, even though Ricoh’s counsel in charge of discovery is not local. 

The Court would, in that instance, allocate costs of such a meeting.

To assist the parties in their meet-and-confer efforts, however, the Court provides the

following guidance:

While Ricoh has failed to identify which discovery requests are at issue, under the

circumstances, that failure is not dispositive. Notably, Synopsys does not dispute that there are

relevant and responsive documents on SolvNET. See Joint letter of 11/7/05, at 7 (“[A] search for

relevant and responsive SolvNET documents has been included in the document production.”).

Based on the joint letter, it appears that Synopsys’s main concern is that it does not want

Ricoh to have “unfettered access” to SolvNET. Id. at 7. Synopsys asserts: 

Synopsys sells several hundred software products not at issue in this

case, and Ricoh offers no theory on why it should be permitted

unfettered access to those items that are clearly not relevant. 

Information regarding these hundreds of products is confidential and

proprietary, and Ricoh can offer zero justification for access to it. 

Since SolvNET access cannot easily be restricted, SolvNET access

would provide Ricoh with an opportunity for an endless fishing

expedition to query hundreds of software products not at issue and

generate confusion by accessing, (re)producing, and selectively

quoting from endless versions and materials and manuals that may not

even be for products at issue in the litigation without any ability for

Synopsys to be aware of the materials that were accessed by Ricoh

until the documents are sprung on Synopsys in depositions or other

settings . . . .

Id.

Synopsys’s concerns are legitimate. On the other hand, Ricoh’s position that a searchable

format is needed is also reasonable. Given the competing concerns, the Court is not inclined to order

Synopsys to provide Ricoh with access to SolvNET so long as Synopsys produces all responsive,

relevant documents that are on SolvNET and in a searchable format. The parties, therefore, should

discuss during the meet and confer specific procedures to ensure that (1) Synopsys has in fact

produced or will produce all responsive documents on SolvNET to Ricoh and that (2) such

documents shall be produced in a “fully searchable form to at least the same degree as the online

equivalent.” Joint letter of 11/7/05, at 5.

Case 5:03-cv-02289-JW Document 275 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 3
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

Regarding the first matter, the Court shall not make any predetermination as to what is the

most appropriate procedure under the circumstances. However, it notes that the parties should

discuss with specificity what the nature of the procedure should be. For example, if the parties agree

that a word search on SolvNET for key terms is the best way to capture responsive documents, they

should specify what exact terms should be used.

As a final point, the Court notes that it makes no finding here as to (1) the propriety of the

version of Synopsys’s Design Compiler that was produced or (2) whether Synopsys retaliated against

David C. Black for his participation in this litigation. The parties have made passing arguments on

both subjects but, so far as the Court is concerned, the only discovery dispute directly at issue is

Ricoh’s access to SolvNET. If, e.g., Ricoh believes that Mr. Black’s participation in SNUG should

be reinstated or Synopsys believes that Mr. Black should not be permitted in his expert capacity to

review SolvNET documents for Ricoh, such relief should be sought by separate motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2005

 

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:03-cv-02289-JW Document 275 Filed 11/09/05 Page 3 of 3