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

Filing 76

ORDER GRANTING 75 JOINT STATUS REPORT AND EXTENDING STAY OF ACTION. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 2/25/14. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2014)

Case3:11-cv-01665-JSW Document75 Filed02/21/14 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
15

v.

16

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

17

Defendants.

18

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

Case No. 3:11-cv-01665-JSW
JOINT STATUS REPORT AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING
STAY OF ACTION
Judge: Hon. Jeffrey S. White
Hearing Date: None

19
Pursuant to the Court’s September 23, 2013 Order, Plaintiff E. I. du Pont de Nemours and

20
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 February 28, 2014, remain in place for an additional 31 days, through

24

March 31, 2014.

25

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

26

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

27

stayed on July 22, 2011. (Docket # 39.)

28

///
-1JOINT STATUS REPORT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING STAY

Case3:11-cv-01665-JSW Document75 Filed02/21/14 Page2 of 6

On August 23, 2011, the United States filed United States v. Walter Liew and Christina

1
2

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

3

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

4

Second Superseding Indictment. (Id. at Docket # 269.) On or about January 7, 2014, trial began

5

in the criminal action. As of the date of this joint status report, the criminal trial has not yet

6

concluded.
DuPont’s Position: The second superseding indictment alleges that defendant Walter

7
8

Liew, his wife, Christina Liew, and several other individual defendants violated multiple federal

9

trade secret and economic espionage laws when they stole – and utilized – the trade secrets at

10

issue in this action. Inter alia, Mr. Liew is charged with Conspiracy to Commit Economic

11

Espionage, Conspiracy to Commit Theft of Trade Secrets, Possession of Trade Secrets,

12

Conveying Trade Secrets, Witness Tampering, and False Statements. (See id. ¶¶ 16-97.) In

13

addition, the second superseding indictment identifies five DuPont trade secrets relating to its

14

TiO2 technology at issue in the criminal action. (Id. ¶ 14.) The second superseding indictment

15

also names various of the Pangang Companies and charges them with 1) Conspiracy to Commit

16

Economic Espionage, 2) Conspiracy to Commit Theft of Trade Secrets, and 3) Attempted

17

Economic Espionage. (Id. ¶¶ 9-10, 17, 22-31, 39-40, 45, 52-54, 57-58.)
USAPT’s Position: Defendants believe that the second superseding indictment speaks for

18
19

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

20

History Relating to the Stay in this Action

21

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

22

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

23

within the meaning of Crim. L.R. 8-1(b). (Docket # 42.) 1

24
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.
-2JOINT STATUS REPORT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING STAY

Case3:11-cv-01665-JSW Document75 Filed02/21/14 Page3 of 6

On September 23, 2011, the parties filed a joint status report requesting that the stay

1
2

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

3

# 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

4
5

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

6

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

7
8

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

9

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

10
11

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

12

on March 27, 2012. (Docket # 52.)
On May 23, 2012, the parties filed an additional joint status report requesting that the stay

13
14

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

15

May 23, 2012. (Docket # 54).
On July 23, 2012, the parties filed an additional joint status report requesting that the stay

16
17

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

18

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

19
20

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

21

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

22
23

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

24

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

25
26

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

27

later that day. (Docket # 62).

28

///
-3JOINT STATUS REPORT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING STAY

Case3:11-cv-01665-JSW Document75 Filed02/21/14 Page4 of 6

On March 26, 2013, the parties filed an additional joint status report requesting that the

1
2

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

3

later that day. (Docket # 64).
On May 20, 2013, the parties filed an additional joint status report requesting that the stay

4
5

be extended for an additional 60 days. (Docket # 65). The Court granted the parties’ request on

6

May 21, 2013. (Docket # 66).
On July 12, 2013, the parties filed an additional joint status report requesting that the stay

7
8

be extended for an additional 60 days. (Docket # 67). The Court granted the parties’ request

9

later that day. (Docket # 68).
On September 10, 2013, the parties filed an additional joint status report requesting that

10
11

the stay be extended for an additional 60 days. (Docket # 69). The Court extended the stay to

12

December 6, 2013. (Docket # 70).

13

On December 2, 2013, the parties filed an additional joint status report requesting that the

14

stay be extended for an additional 60 days. (Docket # 69). Due to the criminal trial schedule, the

15

Court proposed that the stay be extended to February 28, 2014. (Docket # 72). The parties so

16

stipulated (Docket #73), and the Court extended the stay accordingly. (Docket #74.)

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

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

Case3:11-cv-01665-JSW Document75 Filed02/21/14 Page5 of 6

1
2
3

The undersigned counsel request that the stay remain in place for an additional 31 days, at
which time the parties will update the Court.
Dated: February 21, 2014

4
5
6
7

By /s/ Morgan K. Lopez
Attorneys for Plaintiff

8
9
10
11
12
13

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

Dated: February 21, 2014

MOUNT SPELMAN & FINGERMAN P.C.
DANIEL S. MOUNT
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

14
15
16
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 Document75 Filed02/21/14 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 March 31, 2014 is hereby GRANTED.

5

Counsel shall submit a joint status report on or before March 24, 2014.

6
7 February ____, 2014
25
8

Honorable Jeffrey S. White
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
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