From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Aug 7, 2014
3:12-cv-06467-MMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2014)

Opinion

          David T. Pritikin, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, Aseem S. Gupta, M. Patricia Thayer, Philip W. Woo, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA, I. Neel Chatterjee, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff, SYNOPSYS, INC.

          George A. Riley, Mark E. Miller, Luann L. Simmons, Michael Sapoznikow, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA, Xavier A. Clark, Kristin L. Cleveland, Salumeh R. Loesch, Jeffrey S. Love, Andrew M. Mason, John D. Vandenberg, Philip J. Warrick, Owen D. Yeates, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendant, MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION.


          THIRD STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO FILE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

          MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. ("Synopsys") and Defendant Mentor Graphics Corp. ("Mentor Graphics") as follows:

         WHEREAS, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29 provides that the Parties may stipulate to extend discovery;

         WHEREAS, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 29(b) provides that Court approval is required to extend discovery, even where the Parties have stipulated to the extension;

         WHEREAS, pursuant to Magistrate Judge Ryu's Order of August 1, 2014, if the parties are unable to resolve the seven discovery disputes of Dkt. 219 without judicial intervention by the August 5, 2014 deadline, all such disputes shall be filed as a single joint discovery letter of no more than 15 pages;

         WHEREAS, the Parties still are continuing to discuss Mentor's challenges to certain of Synopsys' documents designated "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only, " detailed in counsel for Mentor's July 15, 2014 letter to counsel for Synopsys and the dispute will be narrowed through further supplementation and/or cooperation;

         WHEREAS, the deadline for filing a letter brief on designation challenges pursuant to § 7.3 of the Stipulated Protective Order at Dkt. 146 is five business days after the parties' meet and confer session;

         NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, the Parties hereby stipulate to extend the deadline on which to file the letter brief as to Mentor's challenges to certain of Synopsys' documents designated "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only, " detailed in counsel for Mentor's July 15, 2014 letter to counsel for Synopsys, to August 7, 2014.

         IT IS SO STIPULATED.

         Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer of this document attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatory above.

         PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
Aug 7, 2014
3:12-cv-06467-MMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2014)
Case details for

Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation

Case Details

Full title:SYNOPSYS, INC., a Delaware Corporation Plaintiff, v. MENTOR GRAPHICS…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Francisco Division

Date published: Aug 7, 2014

Citations

3:12-cv-06467-MMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2014)