Case 3:05-cv-02394-CRB Document 50 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 1 of 3 1 DAVID M. FURBUSH (S.B. #83447) MEREDITH N. LANDY (S.B. #136489) 2 DALE M. EDMONDSON (S.B. #189793) SARA M. FOLCHI (S.B. #228540) 3 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 2765 Sand Hill Road 4 Menlo Park, California 94025 Telephone: (650) 473-2600 5 Facsimile: (650) 473-2601 [email protected] 6 [email protected] [email protected] 7 [email protected] 8 Attorneys for Defendants MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION, INC., 9 RAJEEV MADHAVEN, GREGORY C. WALKER and ROY E. JEWELL 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT LLP 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AW L YERS T ARK M A P Case No. C-05-2394-CRB & 13 IN RE MAGMA DESIGN ENLO M TTORNEYS AUTOMATION, INC. SECURITIES CLASS ACTION A 14 ELVENY LITIGATION O'M 15 DECLARATION OF SARA M. FOLCHI IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS THE 16 CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: OF FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS 17 ALL ACTIONS 18 [Filed Concurrently With: 1. Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss 19 the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal 20 Securities Laws; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof; 21 Corporate Disclosure Statement and Certification of Interested Entities or 22 Persons; 2. Request For Judicial Notice in Support of 23 Motion to Dismiss; and 3. [Proposed] Order.] 24 Hearing Date: June 23, 2006 25 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Courtroom 8 26 Judge: Honorable Charles R. Breyer 27 28 FOLCHI DECL. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS - C-05-2394-CRB Case 3:05-cv-02394-CRB Document 50 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 2 of 3 1 DECLARATION OF SARA M. FOLCHI 2 I, Sara M. Folchi, hereby declare as follows: 3 1. I am an associate at the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers LLP, and an attorney 4 licensed to practice before all courts of the State of California and the United States District Court 5 for the Northern District of California. I am an attorney of record for defendants Magma Design 6 Automation, Inc. (“Magma”), Rajeev Madhavan, Gregory C. Walker, and Roy E. Jewell 7 (“defendants”). I provide this declaration in support of defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the 8 Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws. I have 9 personal knowledge of the matters recited herein and, if called to do so, could and would 10 competently testify thereto. 11 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the publicly available LLP 12 portion of the Transcript of the Videotaped Deposition Upon Oral Examination of Lukas Van AW L YERS T ARK M A P & 13 Ginneken, PhD, dated April 26, 2005 and April 27, 2005. I obtained this document from ENLO M TTORNEYS A 14 Magma’s website at http://www.magma-da.com/articles/patent/vanGinnekenVolume1.pdf, and ELVENY O'M 15 http://www.magma-da.com/articles/patent/vanGinnekenVolume2.pdf on March 10, 2006. 16 3. On or about March 20, 2006, I directed Jane Coakley, a paralegal in our office, to 17 obtain a certified copy of “Defendant Magma Design Automation, Inc.’s Answer to Complaint 18 and Counterclaims,” Synopsys, Inc. v. Magma Design Automation, Inc., Case No. 04-3923 MMC, 19 filed on October 21, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 20 California. 21 4. Ms. Coakley informed me that she asked that a messenger service obtain the 22 requested certified copies from the clerk’s office of the United States District Court for the 23 Northern District of California, and on or about March 21, 2006, she provided me with the 24 original certified copy of the document described in ¶ 3 and below. 25 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of “Defendant Magma 26 Design Automation, Inc.’s Answer to Complaint and Counterclaims,” Synopsys, Inc. v. Magma 27 Design Automation, Inc., Case No. 04-3923 MMC, filed on October 21, 2004 in the United States 28 District Court for the Northern District of California. - 1 - FOLCHI DECL. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS - C-05-2394-CRB Case 3:05-cv-02394-CRB Document 50 Filed 03/24/2006 Page 3 of 3 1 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Magma press release 2 dated September 17, 2004. I obtained this document from Magma’s website at 3 http://www.magma-da.com/c/@Cw9SZ8J53tW1U/Pages/PRSynopsisSuit.html on March 10, 4 2006. 5 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit D are true and correct copies of the caption page, page 6 6, signature page, and Exhibit 7 to the “Declaration of Lukas Van Ginneken,” of that declaration, 7 Synopsys, Inc. v. Magma Design Automation, Inc., Case No. 04-3923 MMC, filed on April 11, 8 2005 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Paragraph 36 on 9 page 6 of the declaration references Exhibit 7. I obtained this document from the ECF/PACER 10 system of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 23, 11 2006. LLP 12 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the AW L YERS T ARK M A P & 13 foregoing is true and correct. ENLO M TTORNEYS A 14 Dated: March 24, 2006 ELVENY O'M 15 By: /s/ Sara M. Folchi 16 Sara M. Folchi 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 2 - FOLCHI DECL. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS - C-05-2394-CRB IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN FRANCISC O ------------------------------------------------------ SYNOPSIS, INC ., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, -vs- C04-03923 MMC MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION , INC ., a Delaware corporation, and LUKAS VAN GINNEKEN, Defendants . ------------------------------------------------------ Videotaped Deposition Upon Oral Examinatio n of LUKAS VAN GINNEKEN, PhD, VOLUME I ------------------------------------------------------ 9 :15 a .m . April 26, 2005 1420 Fifth Avenu e Seattle, Washington CHERYL MACDONALD, RMR, CR R COURT REPORTER 1 EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1 f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348818b443 APPEARANCES LUKAS VAN GINNEKEN 4/26/0 5 FOR SYNOPSYS : EXHIBIT INDEX (Cont'd . ) MICHAEL EDELMA N Attorney at Law LAW OFFICES OF DECHERT 975 Page Mill Road No . 2 3 . .. .. .. 127 Palo Alto, California 94304.1013 and No . 24 ..... ............... ................ 145 CHRIS SCOTF GRAHA M Attorney at Law No. 25 ..... ........... .................... 14 8 LAW OFFICES OF DECHERT 1117 California Avenue No. 26 15 1 Palo Alto, California 94304-1106 FOR MAGMA : No . 27 . .. 16 8 GEORGE A. RILEY PETER OBSTLER NO . .28. .. .. .18. ... 1 Attorneys at La w O'MELVENY & MYERS No. 29 . 217 Embarcadero Center Wes t 275 Battery Street EXAMINATION INDEX Suite 2600 BY MR. RILEY: PAGE(S): 6 - 226 San Francisco, California 94111-3305 FOR THE WITNESS : CONFIDENTIAL SESSION: PAGE(S) : 154 - 180 EDWARD W . BULCHI S Attorney at-La w DORSEY & WHITNEY 1420 Fifth Avenu e Suite 340 0 Seattle, Washington 9810 1 ALSO PRESENT : BROOK YOUNG, Videographe r STEPHEN MELVIN 2 4 LUKAS VAN GINNEKEN 4/26/0S 1 LUKAS VAN GINNEKEN, witness herein, having been first 09 :02 :4 3 gMiBrrINDEX duly sworn by the Notary, deposed 09 :02:4 3 2 and said as follows : 09 :02:4 3 pMiBCF NO . PAGE 3 09:02:4 3 No.1 . ... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .... ... .... .. .. is 4 MR . EDELMAN : Before we begin, I just wanted 09 :16:5 7 No. 2 .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. ... ... .. ... .. 32 5 to make dear that we are designating the transcript as 09 :16:5 8 6 attorney and consultants only under the proteotlve 09:17:02 7 order. 09 :17:04 No. 5 .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ... .. 37 5 8 MR. BULCHIS: Before we begin, I would like 09:17 :05 W. 6 49 9 to make it dear that we would not abide by any 09 :17 :06 7 53 10 protective order or undertake any new obligation of 09 :17 :08 1 1 confidentiality . Mr . van Ginneken already has an 09 :17 :1 1 12 obligation of confidentiality with respect to Synopsys 09 :17 :14 ..... 81 13 technology, certain technology that is still 09 :17:16 No. 11 ................ ".....""".... 81 14 confidential . We will, of course, abide by that 09 :17:20 . .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... 12 """" 81 15 agreement, but we will not undertake any new 09 :17:24 No. 13 .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. 82 16 confidentiality obligations. 09 :17 :26 No. 14 .. .. .. .. ... .... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. 85 • 17 MR . RILEY : For the record, we would request 09 :17 :30 15 .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. N0. 87 18 that you withdraw that designation . It is a violation 09:17 :33 No.16 "'•'•""...1 e9 19 of Judge Zimmerman's standing orders on the designation 09 :17 :35 Na 17 .. .. .... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ..... 91 20 of materials as confidential . 09 :17 :38 N0' is """""" ..."". 94 21 MR. EDELMAN: The protective order that the 09 :17 :4 0 NO, 19 .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. 98 22 pa rties have agreed to, with the exception of one 09 :17 :4 2 No. 20 .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ... .. .. .. 99 No 21 ..................................... 109 23 provision that's not at issue here, explicitly provides 09:17 :4 5 No. 22 ..................................... 112 -24 the parties can designate entire transcripts as 09 :17:49 25 confidential, obviously subject to later revision as the 09:17:5 1 3 5 2 (Pages 2 to 5) EASTWOOD-STEIN DEPOSITION MANAGEMENT (800) 219-5300 1f6fbaef-e2c4-46bd-9067-b9348616b443 1 parties review the transcript . In fact, that was a 09 :17 :55 1 if it occurs to you during the course of the day that 09 :20:07 2 point that was fairly extensively negotiated between 09 :17 :59 2 you would like to go back and clarify or explain an 09 :20 :10 3 myself and counsel for Magma, and that's what the 09:18:02 3 answer, would you let me know and we'll try to go back ©9 :20:12 4 parties agreed to .