SYNOPSYS, INC. v. ATOPTECH, INC., 13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR). (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20160608780
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jun. 07, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 07, 2016
Summary: ORDER REQUESTING RESPONSE FROM SYNOPSYS Re: Dkt. Nos. 744, 753 DONNA M. RYU , Magistrate Judge . On May 24, 2016, the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney referred Plaintiff Synopsys, Inc.'s Bench Trial Motion in Limine No. 1 and Motion for Protective Order [Docket No. 744] regarding the deposition of Mr. Alpesh Kothari to the undersigned. [Docket No. 749.] On June 6, 2016, ATopTech, Inc. filed a response stating that ATopTech will withdraw the notice of Kothari's deposition and will not seek to c
Summary: ORDER REQUESTING RESPONSE FROM SYNOPSYS Re: Dkt. Nos. 744, 753 DONNA M. RYU , Magistrate Judge . On May 24, 2016, the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney referred Plaintiff Synopsys, Inc.'s Bench Trial Motion in Limine No. 1 and Motion for Protective Order [Docket No. 744] regarding the deposition of Mr. Alpesh Kothari to the undersigned. [Docket No. 749.] On June 6, 2016, ATopTech, Inc. filed a response stating that ATopTech will withdraw the notice of Kothari's deposition and will not seek to ca..
More
ORDER REQUESTING RESPONSE FROM SYNOPSYS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 744, 753
DONNA M. RYU, Magistrate Judge.
On May 24, 2016, the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney referred Plaintiff Synopsys, Inc.'s Bench Trial Motion in Limine No. 1 and Motion for Protective Order [Docket No. 744] regarding the deposition of Mr. Alpesh Kothari to the undersigned. [Docket No. 749.]
On June 6, 2016, ATopTech, Inc. filed a response stating that ATopTech will withdraw the notice of Kothari's deposition and will not seek to call him as a witness at the July 25, 2016 Bench Trial. [Docket No. 753 at 2, 5.] In light of ATopTech's response to Synopsys's Bench Trial Motion in Limine No. 1 and Motion for Protective Order, it appears that the two motions are moot. By June 10, 2016, Synopsys shall either withdraw its motions, or shall submit a one paragraph letter explaining why the motions are not moot and why the June 30, 2016 hearing should go forward.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
