Sparta Consulting, Inc. v. Copart, Inc.

Filing 365

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/26/18: 290 Motion to Bifurcate is DENIED with a further written order to follow. 266 Motion in Limine one is DENIED. 361 Ex Parte Application is GRANTED. Plaintiff to file an amended witness list by noon on March 30, 2018. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

COPART, INC.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-00046-KJM-CKD

v.

ORDER

SPARTA CONSULTING, INC., KPIT
INFOSYSTEMS, INC., and KPIT
TECHNOLOGIES LTD,

16

Defendants.

17
18

SPARTA CONSULTING, INC.,
Counterplaintiff,

19
v.

20
21

COPART, INC.,
Counterdefendant.

22
23

The court resolves three disputes below, with written orders to follow providing a

24
25

more complete explanation with respect to the first two matters.

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

I.

MOTION TO BIFURCATE (ECF NO. 290)

2

Having reviewed the parties’ filings and heard oral argument on the question of

3

bifurcation (ECF Nos. 290, 341, 347, 359), the court DENIES defendants’ motion to bifurcate.

4

As noted, a further order explaining the court’s reasoning in full will follow.

5

II.

6

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE ONE (ECF NO. 266)
Having reviewed the parties’ filings and heard oral argument on this motion (ECF

7

Nos. 266, 310, 321, 359), the court DENIES the motion and will not exclude evidence of lost

8

profits.

9

The court also DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE defendants’ motion to exclude

10

an expert report on lost profits drafted by Dr. Mohan Rao, Ph.D, subject to renewal at trial as a

11

challenge under Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

12
13
14

A further order explaining the court’s reasoning in full will follow.
III.

COPART’S EX PARTE APPLICATION (ECF NO. 361)
Having reviewed the parties’ filings on this application (ECF Nos. 361, 362), the

15

court GRANTS plaintiff’s request to modify the court’s final pretrial order, ECF No. 349, to

16

allow inclusion of Chief Technology Officer Vincent Phillips on plaintiff’s witness list. The

17

court ORDERS plaintiff to promptly submit an amended witness list including Mr. Phillips and

18

“a more detailed description of Phillips’[s] planned testimony . . . .” ECF No. 361 at 6. The court

19

orders this modification “to prevent manifest injustice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e).

20

Under the “manifest injustice” test of Rule 16, the Ninth Circuit has listed four

21

factors for courts to consider: prejudice to the opposing party, that party’s ability to cure the

22

prejudice, the impact on the orderly and efficient conduct of the trial and any willfulness or bad

23

faith on the part of the party seeking the modification. Hunt v. Cty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616

24

(9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotations omitted). The court also considers the moving party’s delay

25

in seeking amendment. Galdamez v. Potter, 415 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir.2005).

26

Plaintiff has met its burden to show manifest injustice would result if the pretrial

27

order was not modified. See Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 1998), superseded by

28

statute on other grounds as stated in January v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, 594 Fed. App’x 907
2

1

(9th Cir. 2014). Here, there is little, if any, prejudice to defendants. All parties listed Phillips on

2

their Rule 16 initial disclosures, and defendants themselves disclosed Phillips as someone who

3

could testify about “[t]he contracts and agreements between Sparta and Copart; the work

4

performed and completed by Sparta pursuant to the contracts and agreements; Copart’s failure to

5

perform pursuant to the contract and agreements; Copart’s alleged damages; the alleged

6

misappropriation of trade secrets and Copart proprietary information; the allegedly unauthorized

7

access of Copart’s computer systems.” See Takenouchi Decl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 361-1 (quoting

8

Sparta’s Sep’t 6, 2016 Am. Initial Disclosures). Defendants obtained a full seven hours of

9

Phillips’s testimony across two separate days. Id. ¶ 7. Phillips also submitted multiple

10

declarations supporting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and opposing defendants’

11

motions for summary judgment. See ECF Nos. 199, 219, 227. Moreover, defendants have

12

designated more than 80 pages of deposition testimony for trial purposes. See Joint Pretrial

13

Statement (JPTS), Ex. H at 20-27, ECF No. 282-8. Defendants reference Phillips in the

14

descriptions incorporated in their exhibit list more than 170 times. See JPTS, Ex. F, ECF

15

No. 282-6.

16

Defendants will face no unfair surprise when Phillips testifies at trial. Defendants’

17

prior deposition of Phillips eliminates or cures any potential prejudice. Any further conceivable

18

prejudice to defendants can be cured by simply ordering plaintiff promptly to submit an amended

19

witness list identifying Vincent Phillips as a witness and providing “a more detailed description

20

of Phillips’[s] planned testimony . . . .” ECF No. 361 at 6. Such a detailed description will

21

ensure defendants may properly prepare their cross-examination of Phillips at trial.

22

Moreover, identifying Phillips formally as a witness will not affect the orderly and

23

efficient conduct of this case. Trial is set for several weeks down the road, to begin April 23,

24

2018, Phillips has already been deposed, and both parties are aware of the significance of

25

Phillips’ testimony with respect to their dispute.

26

Finally, the court observes no willfulness or bad faith on the part of plaintiffs’

27

counsel. Plaintiff has explained its oversight based on attorney error, by describing special

28

counsel’s having “inadvertently omitted the name of Vincent Phillips” when transferring
3

1

“information from an internal spreadsheet” to “the witness list document” filed with the court.

2

Ziemianek Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 361-2.

3

Plaintiff has met its burden to show the modification requested of the court’s final

4

pretrial order, ECF No. 349, is necessary “to prevent manifest injustice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e).

5

IV.

CONCLUSION

6

The court ORDERS the following:

7

-

8
9

Defendants’ motion to bifurcate, ECF No. 290, is DENIED with a further
written order to follow.

-

Defendants’ motion in limine one, ECF No. 266, is DENIED as to the motion

10

to exclude evidence of lost profits. The motion is DENIED WITHOUT

11

PREJUDICE as to the motion to exclude an expert report on lost profits drafted

12

by Dr. Mohan Rao, Ph.D, subject to renewal at trial as a challenge under

13

Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). A further

14

written order explaining the court’s reasoning also will follow.

15

-

Plaintiff’s ex parte request to modify the court’s final pretrial order, ECF

16

No. 349, to include Vincent Phillips on plaintiff’s witness list is GRANTED.

17

The court hereby ORDERS plaintiff to file an amended witness list by noon on

18

March 30, 2018, adding Vincent Phillips and including “a more detailed

19

description of Phillips’[s] planned testimony . . . .” ECF No. 361 at 6. Once

20

filed the amended witness list will supersede plaintiff’s witness list attached to

21

the court’s final pretrial order, with the superseding list incorporated into and

22

considered a part of that order.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 26, 2018.

25
26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
4