ORDER – No. 17-cv-00561-WHO (LB)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

SYNOPSYS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBIQUITI NETWORKS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00561-WHO (LB)

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY 

LETTER BRIEF

Re: ECF No. 163

The court previously received a letter brief from defendant Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. 

(“Ubiquiti”) seeking a resolution of a discovery dispute regarding plaintiff Synopsys, Inc.’s 

(“Synopsys”) redactions of document productions and alleged failure to provide custodial 

information.1The court denied Ubiquiti’s letter brief without prejudice because it was unilateral 

and reiterated that discovery letter briefs must be joint.

2

The court ordered the parties to meet and 

confer for at least one hour regarding the issues Ubiquiti raised.

3

The court stated that if the parties 

 

1 ECF No. 147. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to 

the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

2 ECF No. 149.

3

Id.
ORDER – No. 17-cv-00561-WHO (LB) 2

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

were unable to resolve their dispute, they could submit a joint letter brief to the court.4The court 

repeated, “the letter brief must be joint.”5

Ubiquiti now submits another letter brief, stating that it has met and conferred with Synopsys 

but the parties have been unable to resolve all of their disputes.6 Ubiquiti informed Synopsys that 

it wanted to submit a joint letter brief and provided Synopsys with its portion of the letter brief on 

March 28, 2018 at 4:28 p.m.7Synopsys provided a supplemental document production at 7:43 

p.m.8 Ubiquiti reviewed the production and determined that it did not address the issues that 

Ubiquiti had raised.9 Ubiquiti states that Synopsys then said at 9:30 p.m. that its portion of the 

letter brief should arrive “in about an hour.”10 At 9:55 p.m., Ubiquiti provided Synopsys with two 

edits to the letter brief that it characterizes as minor, which it states were “to note only that the 

deficiencies had not been remedied by Synopsys’ 7:43 p.m. production.”11 Synopsys thereafter 

responded, “It is 10 pm and unreasonable to demand our response this evening” and did not 

provide Ubiquiti with its portion of the joint letter.12

The court has only one side of the story; it cannot make a full determination on the issues. 

(This is one of the reasons why the court requires letter briefs to be joint.) Ubiquiti’s letter briefs

suggest that Synopsys has been refusing to provide Ubiquiti with its portions, thereby preventing 

Ubiquiti from submitting a joint letter brief. The court hereby orders Synopsys to provide Ubiquiti 

with its response to Ubiquiti’s proposed letter brief13 by noon today. If it chooses, Ubiquiti can 

then submit a joint letter brief that includes its portion, unchanged from the version in its proposed 

 

4

Id.

5

Id. (emphasis in original).

6 Ubiquiti Letter Brief – ECF No. 163.

7

Id.

8

Id.

9

Id.

10 Id.

11 Id.

12 Id.

13 Proposed Letter Brief – ECF No. 163-1.
ORDER – No. 17-cv-00561-WHO (LB) 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

letter brief yesterday, and Synopsys’s response. Alternatively, Ubiquiti may revise its portion of 

the letter brief in response, provided that it gives Synopsys its revisions and a chance to respond

within one business day. Synopsys in turn can then revise its portion of the letter brief, provided it 

gives Ubiquiti its revisions and a chance to respond within one business day. (This is another 

reason why the court requires letter briefs to be joint: not only so the court can see both sides’ 

positions side-by-side, but so the parties can see each other’s positions and arguments before they 

submit them to the court, and thereby try to find areas of compromise and agreement and work out 

disputes where they can and narrow and focus the issues presented to the court where they 

cannot.)

The court will not tolerate any party trying to delay or “game” the joint letter brief process. As 

the court has stated numerous times before in this case, the parties have an obligation to negotiate 

in good faith and cooperate in discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2018

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge