Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02138/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02138-25/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ATMEL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 AUTHENTEC INC,

Defendant. /

No. C-06-02138 CW (EDL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY

On November 21, 2007, Defendant filed a Motion to Modify the Designation of Allegedly

Highly-Confidential Documents, arguing that Plaintiff’s over-designation of documents as highly

confidential - attorneys’ eyes only prevented Defendant’s in-house lawyer from reviewing them

before the December 18, 2007 mediation. In view of the urgency of the upcoming mediation, as the

Court explained to the parties, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Shorten Time to hear

Defendant’s Motion to Modify, setting a December 11, 2007 hearing date. Plaintiff never raised the

issue that it might seek a stay if the Court ordered de-designation. Because the parties have been

proliferating discovery disputes and heavily litigating them without seeming to put genuine effort

into trying to resolve their disputes through reasonable compromise, the Court ordered senior

counsel to personally meet to try to narrow the issues. In view of counsel’s meet and confer session

subsequently scheduled for December 11, 2007, the Court vacated the hearing on the Motion to

Modify, explaining that it would resolve very promptly any remaining disputes. Plaintiff still did

not raise the issue of the potential need for a stay. On December 12, 2007, the parties filed a letter

listing ten documents for which the highly confidential designation was still in dispute, expecting to

be able to resolve the remaining disputed documents by themselves with a little more time. On

December 14, 2007, in the early afternoon, the Court issued an Order Granting in Part Defendant’s

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 255 Filed 12/17/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

1 Today, the parties notified the Court that, contrary to their previous expectations, they

had not been able to agree on an additional set of documents. The Court’s initial review of these has

shown that the heightened confidentiality claimed for many of these borders on the frivolous. 

2

Motion to Modify. Only after the Order issued did Plaintiff first raise the issue of a stay with the

Court’s courtroom deputy and only after business hours on December 14, 2007 did Plaintiff actually

file a motion to stay the Court’s December 14, 2007 Order. On December 17, 2007, Defendant filed

an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to stay. 

The Court agreed to hear Defendant’s Motion to Modify on shortened time and ruled

promptly when presented with the disputed documents because the mediation in this case is

scheduled for December 18, 2007 and Defendant stated that it needed to show these disputed

documents to its in-house counsel in advance of the mediation. The Court told Plaintiff that it takes

seriously requests to show client decision-makers relevant documents. In the Court’s experience,

sharing relevant information with decision-makers facilitates effective mediation. Granting a stay

until Plaintiff’s objections (which have not yet been filed) could be heard and decided by Judge

Wilken would effectively nullify the effort this Court and the parties went to in order to resolve this

dispute in a timely manner prior to the scheduled mediation. Defendant’s Motion to Modify and

accompanying Motion to Shorten Time have been on the docket since November 21, 2007, and the

Court held a telephonic hearing on December 11, 2007 in which it specifically stated its intent to

rule promptly on these issues to facilitate the upcoming mediation. Plaintiff could have foreseen

that it would want to seek a stay or object to any ruling to de-designate or propose rescheduling the

mediation. Yet at no time did Plaintiff indicate that it would seek a stay of any order, even though

Plaintiff was well aware that time was of the essence. Moreover, Plaintiff has provided no legal

authority to support its motion for stay. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for stay is denied.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:06-cv-02138-CW Document 255 Filed 12/17/07 Page 2 of 2