Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965-46/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

1

The challenged orders are: (1) “Order Re: Joint Discovery Letter,” filed March 16,

2015 (Doc. No. 255) and (2) “Order Re: Motion for Sanctions and Motion for Leave to File

Motion for Reconsideration,” filed May 18, 2015 (Doc. No. 302). 

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.

ATOPTECH, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 13-2965 MMC

ORDER DENYING SYNOPSYS’ MOTION

FOR RELIEF FROM ORDERS OF

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge,” filed May 30, 2015, by which Synopsys

seeks an order reversing two nondispositive discovery orders issued by Magistrate Judge

Donna M. Ryu,1

 and entry of an order compelling defendant ATopTech Inc. to produce or

make available for inspection certain source code. 

Having fully considered the matter, the Court hereby DENIES the motion, for the

reason that Synopsys has failed to show the subject orders are clearly erroneous or

contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C 636(b)(1)(A) (providing district court may reconsider

magistrate judge’s order where it has been shown to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to

law”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2015 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 307 Filed 06/09/15 Page 1 of 1