Gardensensor, Inc v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc

Filing 209

AMENDED TENTATIVE RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REBUTTAL TESTIMONY BY EXPERT MARK BRINKERHOFF. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 11/4/2014. (nclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12 GARDENSENSOR, INC., a Delaware
13
14

Corporation, formerly known as
PLANTSENSE, INC., a Delaware
Corporation,
Plaintiff,

15
16

Case No. 12-cv-03922 NC
AMENDED TENTATIVE RULING
ON PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY BY
EXPERT MARK BRINKERHOFF

v.
BLACK & DECKER (U.S.), INC., a

17 Maryland Corporation,
18

Defendant.

19
20

Today after the presentation of evidence to the jury, the parties discussed whether

21 plaintiff would be permitted to call expert Mark Brinkerhoff as a rebuttal expert. The
22 Court has further considered Brinkerhoff’s report and amends its tentative ruling as
23 follows: if Black & Decker does not call Samuel Phillips as a witness, then Brinkerhoff
24 will not be permitted to present rebuttal testimony. This is because his previously
25 disclosed opinions were almost all in response to Phillips. And to the extent Brinkerhoff
26 has an independent opinion, that opinion would be cumulative of the testimony today from
27 plaintiff’s COO, Andrew Hill. Hill, over the objection of Black & Decker, was permitted
28 to opine as to his failure analysis. Plaintiff does not need to rebut the testimony of its own
Case No. 12-cv-03922 NC
ORDER RE REBUTTAL EVIDENCE

1 COO.
2

IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.

3

Date: Novem
mber 4, 2014
4

____
__________
__________
_____
Nath
hanael M. C
Cousins
Unit States M
ted
Magistrate J
Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
11
1
12
2
13
3
14
4
15
5
16
6
17
7
18
8
19
9
20
0
21
1
22
2
23
3
24
4
25
5
26
6
27
7
28
8
Case No. 12-cv-0392 NC
22
ORDER RE REBUT
R
TTAL EVID
DENCE

2