Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Au Optronics Corp. et al

Filing 283


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 IN RE: TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION 9 No. M 07-1827 SI MDL. No. 1827 / United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 This Order Relates to: Case Nos.: C 09-4997 SI; C 10-4572 SI; C 110058 SI; C 10-1064 SI; C 10-5254 SI; C 100117 SI; C 09-5840 SI; 10-4945 SI 11 AT&T Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., C 09-4997 SI 12 Best Buy Co., Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., 13 C 10-4572 SI ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO SPECIAL MASTER’S ORDER STRIKING EXPERT REPORTS 14 Costco Wholesale Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., C 11-0058 SI 15 Dell, Inc. and Dell Products, L.P. v. Sharp 16 Corp., et al., C 10-1064 SI 17 Eastman Kodak Co. v. Epson Imagining Devices Corp., et al., C 10-5254 SI 18 Electrograph Systems, Inc. v. Epson Imaging 19 Devices Corp., et al., C 10-0117 SI 20 Motorola Mobility, Inc., et al. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., C 09-5840 SI 21 Target Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., 22 C 10-4945 SI 23 24 / Defendants have filed an objection to the Special Master’s Order granting plaintiffs’ motion to 25 strike defendants’ sur-rebuttal expert reports. See Special Master’s Order Re Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike 26 Defendants’ Sur-Rebuttal Expert Reports and AUO’s Expert Opinions, Master Docket No. 6481 (Aug. 27 17, 2012). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition 28 without oral argument and therefore VACATES the hearing currently scheduled for September 28, 2012. 1 Having considered the parties’ papers, and for good cause appearing, the Court hereby DENIES 2 defendants’ objection. 3 The Special Master’s Order concerned plaintiffs’ request to strike the eleven sur-rebuttal expert 4 reports filed by defendants. The Special Master found that defendants neither “sought leave of court to 5 modify the July Scheduling Order to allow sur-rebuttal reports,” nor “demonstrated that Plaintiffs’ 6 rebuttal reports crossed the line of appropriate rebuttal by articulating wholly new theories and opinions.” 7 Order at 3. Instead, the Special Master determined that plaintiffs’ reports “properly limited themselves 8 to responding to Defendants’ criticism of their opening reports and to reinforcing the evidence and 9 analysis supporting the original opinions they articulated.” Id. On these grounds, the Special Master United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ sur-rebuttal reports. Defendants object to the Special 11 Master’s Order. 12 The question of whether a party has shown “good cause” for deviating from a court-imposed 13 pretrial schedule is a procedural matter that this Court reviews for abuse of discretion. See Order 14 Appointing Martin Quinn as Special Master, Master Docket No. 1679, at ¶ 18 (April 12, 2010); Fed. R. 15 Civ. P. 53(f)(3)-(5). Courts are given “particularly wide latitude” in determining whether to issue 16 discovery sanctions under Rule 37. See Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 17 1106 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Rule 37(c)(1) gives teeth to [the Rule 26] requirements by forbidding the use at 18 trial of any information required to be disclosed by Rule 26(a) that is not properly disclosed.”). 19 The Court agrees with the reasoning set forth in the Special Master’s Order and therefore adopts 20 the Order in its entirety. Defendants’ justification for allowing the proposed sur-rebuttals does not 21 amount to good cause under the July 2011 Scheduling Order. Nor have defendants convinced the Court 22 that their untimely submission of the proposed sur-rebuttal reports is “substantially justified or harmless” 23 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1). See, e.g., Goodman v. Staples The Office Superstore, 24 LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2011). Defendants’ argument that “the trials would biased and unfair 25 in the absence of a right to respond to [plaintiffs’] new rebuttal opinions,” Motion at 25, is unconvincing. 26 Not only did the Special Master correctly conclude that plaintiffs’ rebuttal reports do not articulate 27 “wholly new theories and opinions,” defendants will have an opportunity at trial to cross examine 28 plaintiffs’ experts and challenge the bases for their opinions. 2 1 Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendants’ objection to the Special Master’s Order. Master 2 Docket No. 6668; Docket No. 366 in C 09-4997 SI; Docket No. 441 in C 09-5840 SI; Docket No. 265 3 in C 10-0117 SI; Docket No. 334 in C 10-1064 SI; Docket No. 260 in C 10-4572 SI; Docket No. 344 in 4 C 10-4945 SI; Docket No. 264 in C 10-5452 SI; and Docket No. 264 in C 11-0058 SI. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: September 26, 2012 9 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?