Dell Inc. et al v. Sharp Corporation et al

Filing 217

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' OBJECTION TO SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO DISCLOSE ANTHONY NANNI AS EXPERT WITNESS IN THE DELL CASE 5273 5389 in case 3:07-md-01827-SI; 193 in case 3:10-cv-01064-SI (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/2/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION
/

No. C 10-01064

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. M 07-1827 SI
MDL. No. 1827

This Order Relates to:

11

DELL INC. and DELL PRODUCTS L.P.,

12

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
OBJECTION TO SPECIAL MASTER’S
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO
DISCLOSE ANTHONY NANNI AS
EXPERT WITNESS IN THE DELL CASE

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14

SHARP CORPORATION, et. al.,

15

Defendants.
/

16
17

The Hannstar Display Defendants, on behalf of all Defendants in the Dell case (collectively,

18

“Defendants”), have filed an objection to the Special Master’s Order denying their request for leave to

19

disclose Anthony V. Nanni as an expert. See Special Master’s Further Amended Order Re Defendants’

20

Motion for Leave to Disclose Anthony Nanni as Expert Witness in the Dell and Best Buy Cases, Master

21

Docket No. 5371 (April 4, 2012). Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter suitable for

22

decision without oral argument and therefore VACATES the hearing currently scheduled for May 4,

23

2012. Having considered the arguments presented in the moving papers, the Court hereby DENIES

24

Defendants’ objection.

25

The Special Master’s Order concerned Defendants’ request for leave to disclose Mr. Nanni as

26

an expert witness in the Dell case after the court-ordered deadline. Finding that “defendants have not

27

demonstrated that their late designation of Nanni was ‘substantially justified’ or ‘harmless,’ or that they

28

have ‘good cause’ for a two-to-four month delay in complying with the Court’s pre-trial schedule,” the

1

Special Master denied Defendants’ request. Order at 5; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) (barring a party

2

from presenting a late-disclosed witness unless “the failure was substantially justified or harmless.”).

3

Defendants object to the Special Master’s Order.

4

The question of whether a party has shown “good cause” for deviating from a court-imposed

5

pretrial schedule is a procedural matter that this Court reviews for abuse of discretion. See Order

6

Appointing Martin Quinn as Special Master, Master Docket No. 1679 (April 12, 2010) at ¶ 18; Fed. R.

7

Civ. P. 53(f)(3)-(5). Courts are given “particularly wide latitude” in determining whether to issue

8

sanctions under Rule 37. Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir.

9

2001).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The Court agrees with the reasoning set forth in the Special Master’s Order and therefore adopts

11

the Order in its entirety. Defendants’ justification for their 90-day delay in disclosing Mr. Nanni does

12

not amount to good cause under the July 2011 scheduling Order. Nor have Defendants convinced the

13

Court that such delay was “substantially justified or harmless” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

14

37(c)(1). See Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2011)

15

(“[w]hen a party fails to make the disclosures required by Rule 26(a), the party is not allowed to use the

16

[information or witness] . . . at trial unless it establishes that the failure was substantially justified or is

17

harmless.”).

18
19
20

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ objection to the Special Master’s Order. Docket
No. 5273, 5389 in M 07-1827; Docket No. 193 in 10-1064.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: May 2, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2