E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company v. USA Performance Technology, Inc. et al

Filing 66

ORDER GRANTING 65 STIPULATION EXTENDING STAY OF ACTION AND PERMITTING PLAINTIFF E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 5/21/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2013)

Case3:11-cv-01665-JSW Document65 Filed05/20/13 Page1 of 6

1
2
3
4
5

GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP
CLEMENT L. GLYNN, Bar No. 57117
MORGAN K. LOPEZ, Bar No. 215513
JONATHAN A. ELDREDGE, Bar No. 238559
One Walnut Creek Center
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

6
Attorneys for E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12

E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY,

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

16

USA PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY,
INC., PERFORMANCE GROUP (USA),
INC., WALTER LIEW, and JOHN LIU,

17

Defendants.

15

18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:11-cv-01665-JSW
JOINT STATUS REPORT AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING
STAY OF ACTION AND PERMITTING
PLAINTIFF E. I. DU PONT DE
NEMOURS AND COMPANY TO FILE
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
WITHIN 30 DAYS
Judge: Hon. Jeffrey S. White
Hearing Date: None

19
20

Pursuant to the Court’s March 26, 2013 Order, Plaintiff E. I. du Pont de Nemours and

21

Company (“DuPont”) and defendants Walter Liew and USA Performance Technology, Inc.

22

(collectively “USAPT”) submit this Joint Status Report. The parties request that the stay in this

23

matter set to expire on May 27, 2013, remain in place for an additional 60 days, through July 19,

24

2013. The parties further agree that during the next 30 days, the Court permit DuPont to file a

25

First Amended Complaint to, inter alia, add as defendants Pangang Group Company Ltd.,

26

Pangang Group Steel Vanadium & Titanium Company Ltd., Pangang Group Titanium Industry

27

Company, Ltd., Pangang Group Chongqing Titanium Industry Company, Ltd., and Pangang

28

Group International Economic & Trading Company (collectively the “Pangang Companies”).
-1JOINT STATUS REPORT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING STAY

Case3:11-cv-01665-JSW Document65 Filed05/20/13 Page2 of 6

1

DuPont wishes to do so in order to protect against further running of the statutes of limitations.

2

Once the amendment is made, DuPont would expect the stay to continue, except as to effecting

3

service on the Pangang defendants, a process that may take some time.

4

On April 6, 2011, DuPont filed the instant suit. (Docket # 1.) Defendants filed their

5

Substituted Answer and Counterclaim on July 11, 2011. (Docket # 35.) The action was first

6

stayed on July 22, 2011. (Docket # 39.)
On August 23, 2011, the United States filed United States v. Walter Liew and Christina

7
8

Liew, No. CR-11-0573-RS. On February 7, 2012, the United States filed a superseding

9

indictment in said action. (Id. at Docket # 64.) On March 12, 2013, the United States filed a

10

Second Superseding Indictment. (Id. at Docket # 269.)DuPont’s Position: The second

11

superseding indictment alleges that defendant Walter Liew, his wife, Christina Liew, and several

12

other individual defendants violated multiple federal trade secret and economic espionage laws

13

when they stole – and utilized – the trade secrets at issue in this action. Inter alia, Mr. Liew is

14

charged with Conspiracy to Commit Economic Espionage, Conspiracy to Commit Theft of Trade

15

Secrets, Possession of Trade Secrets, Conveying Trade Secrets, Witness Tampering, and False

16

Statements. (See id. ¶¶ 16-97.) In addition, the second superseding indictment identifies five

17

DuPont trade secrets relating to its TiO2 technology at issue in the criminal action. (Id. ¶ 14.)

18

The second superseding indictment also names various of the Pangang Companies and charges

19

them with 1) Conspiracy to Commit Economic Espionage, 2) Conspiracy to Commit Theft of

20

Trade Secrets, and 3) Attempted Economic Espionage. (Id. ¶¶ 9-10, 17, 22-31, 39-40, 45, 52-54,

21

57-58.)

22

The facts set forth in the superseding indictment also support imposition of civil liability

23

against the Pangang entities. Allowing DuPont to amend its complaint now to add the Pangang

24

Companies as defendants will enhance the efficient resolution of this litigation, as it will enable

25

DuPont to begin perfecting service on the Pangang Companies under the Hague Convention, a

26

process that can take several months. That way, when the stay is ultimately lifted, the Pangang

27

Companies will have been served, thereby avoiding further delay of the civil litigation.

28
-2JOINT STATUS REPORT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING STAY

Case3:11-cv-01665-JSW Document65 Filed05/20/13 Page3 of 6

DuPont will be in a position to file a first amended complaint within 30 days. Because

1
2

only 11 days elapsed between Defendants’ filing of their operative answer and counterclaims

3

and the staying of this action (Docket #35, 39) the time for DuPont to amend its complaint as a

4

matter of course has not yet expired. (See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(a)(1)(b) (party may amend its

5

pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading).)
USAPT’s Position: Defendants believe that the second superseding indictment speaks for

6
7

itself, and no further explanation or commentary is appropriate or needed. Defendants take no

8

position on whether DuPont can allege claims against the Pangang Companies. Defendants do

9

not object to the Court permitting DuPont to amend its complaint within the next 30 days.

10

On September 7, 2011, this Court issued an Order relating the criminal proceeding with

11

this action, pursuant to its determination that this action and the criminal proceeding are related

12

within the meaning of Crim. L.R. 8-1(b). (Docket # 42.) 1
On September 23, 2011, the parties filed a joint status report requesting that the stay

13
14

initially entered on July 22, 2011 (Docket # 39), be extended for an additional 60 days. (Docket

15

# 44.) On September 29, 2011, the Court granted the parties’ request. (Docket # 45.)
On November 23, 2011, the parties filed an additional joint status report requesting that

16
17

the stay be extended for an additional 60 days. (Docket # 46.) The Court granted the parties’

18

request on November 29, 2011. (Docket # 48.)
On January 24, 2012, the parties filed an additional joint status report requesting that the

19
20

stay be extended for an additional 60 days. (Docket # 49.) The Court granted the parties’

21

request on January 31, 2012. (Docket # 50.)
On March 26, 2012, the parties filed an additional joint status report requesting that the

22
23

stay be extended for an additional 60 days. (Docket # 51.) The Court granted the parties’

24

request on March 27, 2012. (Docket # 52.)

25

///

26
1

27
28

On September 16, 2011, DuPont dismissed without prejudice defendant John Liu pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). (Docket # 43.) Thus, the only remaining defendants
in this action are Walter Liew and his companies, USA Performance Technology Inc. and
Performance Group, Inc.
-3JOINT STATUS REPORT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING STAY

Case3:11-cv-01665-JSW Document65 Filed05/20/13 Page4 of 6

On May 23, 2012, the parties filed an additional joint status report requesting that the

1
2

stay be extended for an additional 60 days. (Docket # 53). The Court granted the parties’

3

request on May 23, 2012. (Docket # 54).

4

On July 23, 2012, the parties filed an additional joint status report requesting that the stay

5

be extended for an additional 60 days. (Docket # 55). The Court granted the parties’ request on

6

July 24, 2012. (Docket # 56).
On September 21, 2012, the parties filed an additional joint status report requesting that

7
8

the stay be extended for an additional 60 days. (Docket # 57). The Court granted the parties’

9

request later that day. (Docket # 58).
On November 20, 2012, the parties filed an additional joint status report requesting that

10
11

the stay be extended for an additional 60 days. (Docket # 59). The Court granted the parties’

12

request later that day. (Docket # 60).
On January 18, 2013, the parties filed an additional joint status report requesting that the

13
14

stay be extended for an additional 60 days. (Docket # 61). The Court granted the parties’

15

request later that day. (Docket # 62).
On March 26, 2013, the parties filed an additional joint status report requesting that the

16
17

stay be extended for an additional 60 days. (Docket # 63). The Court granted the parties’

18

request later that day. (Docket # 64).

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
-4JOINT STATUS REPORT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING STAY

Case3:11-cv-01665-JSW Document65 Filed05/20/13 Page5 of 6

1

The undersigned counsel request that the stay remain in place for an additional 60 days,

2

but notwithstanding, the stay that DuPont be permitted to file a First Amended Complaint within

3

the next 30 days. Additionally, the parties will file a Joint Status Report on July 12, 2013.

4
5

Dated: May 20, 2013

6
7
8

GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP
CLEMENT L. GLYNN
MORGAN K. LOPEZ
JONATHAN A. ELDREDGE
One Walnut Creek Center
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500
Walnut Creek, CA 94596

9
By /s/ Morgan K. Lopez
Attorneys for Plaintiff

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Dated: May 20, 2013

MOUNT & STOELKER, P.C.
DANIEL S. MOUNT
ON LU
KEVIN M. PASQUINELLI
RiverPark Tower, Suite 1650
333 West San Carlos Street
San Jose, CA 95110-2740
By /s/ Daniel S. Mount
Attorneys for Defendants USA Performance
Technology, Inc., and Walter Liew

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5JOINT STATUS REPORT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING STAY

Case3:11-cv-01665-JSW Document65 Filed05/20/13 Page6 of 6

[PROPOSED] ORDER

1
2

Having read and considered the Joint Status Report,

3

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

4

The parties’ request that the stay be extended until July 19, 2013 is hereby GRANTED.

5

Notwithstanding the stay, within 30 days, DuPont may file a First Amended Complaint. Counsel

6

shall submit a joint status report on or before July 12, 2013.

7
8
21
9 May ____, 2013
10

Honorable Jeffrey S. White
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6JOINT STATUS REPORT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING STAY