Microvention, Inc. v. Balt USA, LLC et al

Filing 778

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF US MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Josephine L. Staton that: (1) MVI's first motion for sanctions (Dkt. 386 ) is granted. MVI's second motion for sanctions (Dkt. 522 , 526 ) is granted. See document for further information. (jp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

MICROVENTION, INC.,

Case No. 8:20-cv-02400-JLS-KES

Plaintiff,
v.
BALT USA, LLC, et al.,

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and all the
records and files herein, along with the Reports and Recommendations of the
United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 746, 747). Further, the Court has engaged in
a de novo review of those portions of the Reports and Recommendations to which
objections (Dkt. 761, 763, 764, 765) have been made. With one exception the
Court accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the United States
Magistrate Judge.
Specifically, after review of the record, the Court accepts the Magistrate
Judge’s factual findings regarding Defendant Le’s unexplained, inconsistent
representations regarding his possession and disposition of the Lenovo and Surface

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Go laptops, but concludes that the evidence supports a finding by at least a
preponderance of the evidence that Le failed to retain the Lenovo and Surface Go
Laptops with the intent to deprive MVI of ESI for use in the litigation. In the
present circumstances, where Le has had abundant opportunity to present evidence
on the issue in the context of a pretrial motion, there is no reason to place that issue
before the jury for determination.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
(1)

MVI’s first motion for sanctions (Dkt. 386) is granted.

(2)

MVI shall be allowed to present evidence to the jury concerning the
loss and likely relevance of the information on the Tran and Katayama

11

laptops, and the Court shall instruct the jury that it may consider that

12

evidence, along with all the other evidence in the case, in making its

13
14
15

decision.1
(3)

the Tran and Katayama laptops is proof that (a) Tran and Katayama

16

took no documents from MVI, or (b) any documents Tran and

17
18
19

Katayama took from MVI were not used by Balt.
(4)

(Dkt. 386), including attorney’s fees and expert fees. Within fourteen

21

(14) days of this order, MVI shall file a status report advising the

22

Court whether, after meeting and conferring with former and current

23

counsel for Balt, the parties agree on the reasonable amount of

24

expenses MVI incurred in bringing the motion. If they cannot reach

25

agreement, MVI shall be allowed to submit evidence of such to the

26
28

Balt and Balt’s former counsel are jointly and severally liable for the
reasonable expenses MVI incurred in bringing the motion for sanctions

20

27

Balt is precluded from arguing at trial that the lack of evidence from

1

The parties will submit specific proposed language for the jury instructions
discussed in this order pursuant to the Court’s trial preparation procedures.
2

1
2
3
4

Magistrate Judge.
(5)

MVI’s second motion for sanctions (Dkt. 522, 526) is granted.

(6)

The jury shall be instructed to presume that the electronically stored
information (“ESI”) Le deleted from Hard Drive 7 and Hard Drive 3

5

and that he failed to retain on the Lenovo and Surface Go Laptops was

6
7
8

unfavorable to Le and Balt.
(7)

reinstalled or upgraded the OS on the Surface 7 Laptop, and (b) if so,

9

the jury should presume any ESI on those devices was unfavorable to

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

The jury shall be instructed that: (a) the jury should decide if Le

Le and Balt.
(8)

Le and Balt are jointly and severally liable for the reasonable expenses
MVI incurred in bringing the motion (Dkt. 522, 526). Within
fourteen (14) days of this order, MVI shall file a status report advising
the Court whether, after meeting and conferring with counsel for Le
and Balt, the parties agree on the reasonable amount of expenses MVI
incurred in bringing the instant motion. If they cannot reach
agreement, MVI shall be allowed to submit evidence of such to the
Magistrate Judge.

DATED: November 13, 2023

____________________________________
JOSEPHINE L. STATON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3