IceMOS Technology Corporation v. Omron Corporation

Filing 474

ORDER that the Objection to Omron's Witness List (Doc. 464 ) is OVERRULED. See attached order for additional information. Signed by Senior Judge James A. Teilborg on 4/13/2020. (RMW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

IceMOS Technology Corporation,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-02575-PHX-JAT

Omron Corporation,

13

Defendant.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff IceMOS Technology Corporation’s Objection

16

to Omron’s Witness List (Doc. 464). Plaintiff asserts that defense witness Tetsuya Yoda

17

was not properly disclosed by Defendant Omron Corporation. The Court ordered

18

Defendant to respond, (Doc. 467), and it has. (Doc. 471). Plaintiff has also replied.

19

(Doc. 472). The Court now rules on the Objection (Doc. 464).

20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

The Court has already ruled on each motion in limine in this case. (Doc. 462;

22

Doc. 466). Particularly relevant here is that the Court granted Defendant’s motion in limine

23

to exclude one of Plaintiff’s witnesses—Richard Williams—for failure to properly disclose

24

his identity. (Doc. 462 at 9). Plaintiff asserts that the Court should exclude Yoda as

25

improperly disclosed as well. (Doc. 464).

26
27
28

1

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

2

In the District of Arizona, parties are under a duty to provide certain information

3

through “court-ordered mandatory initial discovery.” Gen. Order No. 17-08, at 1, 3–4

4

(D. Ariz. Nov. 1, 2018) (superseding the disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil

5

Procedure 26(a)(1)). This Court “may issue further just orders,” including “prohibiting the

6

disobedient party . . . from introducing designated matters in evidence” for a party’s failure

7

to abide by General Order No. 17-08’s requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii); Gen.

8

Order No. 17-08, at 4.

9

Under General Order No. 17-08, parties must disclose “all persons who [the party]

10

believe[s] are likely to have discoverable information relevant to any party’s claims or

11

defenses,” and parties must “provide a fair description of the nature of the information each

12

such person is believed to possess.” Gen. Order No. 17-08, at 4. “The duty to provide

13

mandatory initial discovery responses set forth in [General Order No. 17-08] is a

14

continuing duty, and each party must serve supplemental responses when new or additional

15

information is discovered or revealed.” Id. at 3. Parties must supplement within thirty days

16

of “when new or additional information is discovered or revealed,” and, under this Court’s

17

scheduling order, final supplementation must occur with sufficient time “to allow for

18

meaningful discovery prior to” the close of fact discovery. Id. at 3–4; (Doc. 35 at 3–4).

19

“If new information is revealed in a written discovery response or a deposition in a

20

manner that reasonably informs all parties of the information, the information need not be

21

presented in a supplemental response.” Gen. Order No. 17-08, at 4; see also Fed. R. Civ.

22

P. 26(e)(1)(A) (stating a party must make a supplemental disclosure “if the party learns

23

that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect” unless

24

“the additional or corrective information has . . . otherwise been made known to the other

25

parties during the discovery process or in writing”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, Notes of Advisory

26

Committee on Rules—1993 Amendment (“There is . . . no obligation to provide

27

supplemental or corrective information that has been otherwise made known to the parties

28

in writing or during the discovery process, as when a witness not previously disclosed is

-2-

1

identified during the taking of a deposition . . . .”). “The disclosure requirements should, in

2

short, be applied with common sense in light of the principles of Rule 1, keeping in mind

3

the salutary purposes that the rule is intended to accomplish. The litigants should not

4

indulge in gamesmanship with respect to the disclosure obligations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26,

5

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1993 Amendment.

6

III.

ANALYSIS

7

Plaintiff contends that Yoda must be excluded because Defendant did not properly

8

disclose Yoda’s identity and the asserted failure to disclose Yoda’s identity was unjustified

9

and not harmless. (Doc. 464). Defendant asserts that Yoda was adequately disclosed for

10

several reasons. (Doc. 471 at 7–8). First, Plaintiff itself disclosed Yoda as a relevant

11

witness. (Id. at 7; Doc. 471-1 at 2–3; Doc. 471-3 at 2–3). Second, Defendant stated in

12

response to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories that Yoda “communicated with [Plaintiff]

13

regarding the Supply Agreement and/or the business relationship between the parties on

14

behalf of [Defendant],” and Defendant notes that Yoda was brought up by Plaintiff’s

15

counsel in deposition. (Doc. 471 at 7–8; Doc. 471-2 at 3; Doc. 471-4 at 7–8). Finally,

16

Defendant claims that Plaintiff was aware of Yoda because Plaintiff is “using [Yoda’s] e-

17

mail communication as the primary basis for Mr. Bratic’s opinion of ‘lost[/]development

18

support’ damages for Gen1/Gen2.” (Doc. 471 at 8).

19

Defendant did not violate its obligations under General Order No. 17-08 or this

20

Court’s scheduling order (Doc. 35) because Plaintiff knew of Yoda well before the close

21

of fact discovery on February 22, 2019. (Doc. 101 at 2; Doc. 35 at 3–4). A party need not

22

supplement a disclosure or response to a request for discovery when a witness has been

23

made known to the opposing party through the discovery process. See Gen. Order No. 17-

24

08, at 4; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A); Gonzales v. City of Lake Havasu City, No.

25

CV-17-08205-PCT-GMS, 2019 WL 6726295, at *3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 11, 2019).

26

Plaintiff was aware of Yoda during discovery, and thus, Yoda’s testimony should

27

not be excluded. Not only did Defendant disclose Yoda’s identity on October 11, 2018, in

28

response to Plaintiff’s interrogatories, (Doc. 471 at 3; Doc. 471-2 at 2), but, on August 15,

-3-

1

2018, and on February 22, 2019, Plaintiff itself included Yoda in its own responses to the

2

Court’s mandatory initial discovery requests.1 (Doc. 471 at 3; Doc. 471-1 at 2–3; Doc. 471-

3

3 at 2–3). Specifically, Plaintiff disclosed Yoda as an individual who “has personal

4

knowledge of the business relationship between [Plaintiff] and [Defendant], the attempts

5

to develop and development of [Plaintiff]’s Super Junction MOSFETs, and documents in

6

support.” (Doc. 471-1 at 2–3; Doc. 471-3 at 2–3). Plaintiff also opposed Defendant’s

7

motion to exclude an e-mail written by Yoda. (Doc. 421 (Defendant’s motion to exclude);

8

Doc. 428 (Plaintiff’s response)). In fact, Plaintiff used that very e-mail in deposition, which

9

shows Plaintiff had knowledge of Yoda’s identity when there was still sufficient time to

10

conduct meaningful discovery. (Doc. 471-4 at 7–8). Consequently, Defendant met its

11

obligations under General Order No. 17-08 as Plaintiff was aware of Yoda’s identity well

12

before fact discovery closed, indicating Plaintiff had enough time to conduct meaningful

13

discovery. (Doc. 35 at 3–4); see Gonzales, 2019 WL 6726295, at *3.

14

Plaintiff’s protestation that Yoda should be excluded under the same rationale as the

15

Court’s exclusion of Williams is not persuasive. (Doc. 464). Plaintiff did not disclose

16

Williams during fact discovery. (Doc. 427 at 2 (providing no date but asserting that

17

Williams’ identity was produced “well within the expert discovery deadline” of July 1,

18

2019); Doc. 101 at 2 (setting February 22, 2019, as fact discovery deadline)). Accordingly,

19

Plaintiff argued that Williams was not subject to exclusion because it claimed Williams’

20

proffered testimony was for impeachment purposes. (Doc. 427 at 3–5). But, the Court

21

rejected that argument as Williams’ proffered testimony was not solely for impeachment.

22

(Doc. 462 at 9). In contrast, here, the Court does not need to reach the issue of whether

23

Yoda’s testimony would be related solely to impeachment as Yoda’s identity was

24

adequately disclosed. In short, there is no dispute that Plaintiff was aware of Yoda’s

25

identity with sufficient time to conduct meaningful discovery prior to the close of fact

26

discovery, whereas Plaintiff has not established that Defendant became aware of Williams’

27

1

28

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff erroneously referred to Tetsuya Yoda as “Takehiko Yoda”
in the disclosure. (Doc. 471 at 2 n.1). Plaintiff did not respond to this assertion. (Doc. 472).
The Court therefore accepts it as true.

-4-

1

identity even before the close of fact discovery. Therefore, the Court’s exclusion of

2

Williams does not control here.

3

The rules relating to disclosure are not meant for the parties to “indulge in

4

gamesmanship.”2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1993

5

Amendment. Not only did Plaintiff itself disclose Yoda as a witness with relevant

6

information, but Plaintiff is also relying on an e-mail that Yoda sent to buttress its claim to

7

research and development damages. (See, e.g., Doc. 306 at 20; Doc. 308 at 69; Doc. 332 at

8

16–17). This fact belies Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant “is trying to sandbag [Plaintiff]

9

with testimony from [Yoda] as an undisclosed witness.”3 (Doc. 464 at 3). The Court would

10

be remiss if it did not remind the parties’ counsel that “passionate” advocacy must still not

11

cross the line. (Doc. 203 at 27). The gamesmanship the Court has witnessed throughout

12

this litigation, including this Objection (Doc. 464), is unacceptable. As trial draws near, the

13

Court is certain it will not need to again remind counsel of the professionalism that is

14

expected of lawyers. (See id.).

15

///

16

///

17

///

18

///

19

22

Though the Court recognizes that the “discovery obligations” under General Order No.
17-08 “supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1),” Gen. Order No. 17-08, at 1,
the Court has no doubt that these obligations under General Order No. 17-08 were not
meant to allow for the parties’ to “indulge in gamesmanship” any more than the disclosure
requirements under Rule 26(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, Notes of Advisory Committee on
Rules—1993 Amendment.

23

3

2

20
21

24
25
26
27
28

More bizarre is Plaintiff’s claim that Plaintiff “did not depose Mr. Yoda because it had
no discovery from his emails (because [Defendant] claimed they were irrelevant) and he
was not listed as a person with knowledge of relevant facts.” (Doc. 464 at 3). As noted, not
only did Plaintiff itself include Yoda in its initial discovery responses as an individual with
discoverable information, as early as August 15, 2018, six months before the fact discovery
deadline, (Doc. 471 at 3; Doc. 471-1 at 2–3; Doc. 471-3 at 2–3), but, Defendant also
included Yoda in response to Plaintiff’s interrogatories. (Doc. 471-2 at 2). Moreover,
Plaintiff did obtain at least one of Yoda’s e-mails, which is evinced by the fact that Plaintiff
deposed a witness based on an e-mail sent by Yoda. (Doc. 471-4 at 7–8). The Court warned
defense counsel that it must be more cautious with representations it makes to this Court;
the same is equally true for Plaintiff’s counsel. (Doc. 470 at 1 n.1).

-5-

1

In short, the Court will not exclude Yoda because Plaintiff knew of Yoda’s identity

2

with sufficient time to conduct meaningful discovery. The Court will therefore overrule the

3

Objection (Doc. 464).

4

IV.

CONCLUSION

5

Based on the foregoing,

6

IT IS ORDERED that the Objection to Omron’s Witness List (Doc. 464) is

7
8

OVERRULED.
Dated this 13th day of April, 2020.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-6-