A&C Catalysts, Inc. v. Raymat Materials, Inc.

Filing 134

FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, ORDER RE RULE 706 EXPERT, AND REFERRAL TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR MEDIATION. A&C submission by 3/5/2015 at noon. Raymat submission due by 3/12/2015 at noon. Joint response due by 3/16/2015 at noon.. Signed by Judge Alsup on February 26, 2015. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

A&C CATALYSTS, INC.,
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,

11
12
13
14

No. C 14-04122 WHA

v.
RAYMAT MATERIALS, INC.,
Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff.
/

15

FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT
ORDER, ORDER RE
RULE 706 EXPERT, AND
REFERRAL TO MAGISTRATE
JUDGE FOR MEDIATION

16
Seventeen pages of findings of fact and conclusions of law along with an order for relief
17
following a three-day bench trial issued in December 2014. The order required Raymat
18
Materials, Inc. to supply certain information to A&C Catalysts by January 2015, and to complete
19
the teleconferencing support with Dr. Jibing Lin by February 2015 (Dkt. No. 111 at 15–16).
20
In January 2015, Dr. Lin provided A&C Catalysts with five documents (Lin Decl. ¶ 3,
21
Dkt. No. 129-1). A week later, A&C Catalysts provided Raymat with a long list of questions for
22
the teleconference. The teleconference occurred on February 20, 2015. The parties recorded the
23
teleconference by video and stenography.
24
Now, A&C Catalysts contends that Dr. Lin was unable to provide the “complete
25
manufacturing process, either by the documents drafted, or through the teleconference.”
26
“Production records from actual operations would fill in the gaps,” it claims. A&C Catalysts also
27
contends that (Dkt. No. 130):
28
Dr. Lin also stated the following: (1) he does not know how, and
by what equipment, Yantai combined the separate LL batches to
make a complete lot; (2) he does not know the complete process

1

flow, or how the plant prevented cross contamination between
materials, nor does he know the setup of certain manufacturing
equipment used, e.g. the centrifuge, the screener, and protocol for
material transport; (3) he does not know the derivation of the target
and plant adjustments to maintain proper yield in production; (4) he
does not know how the plant eliminated residual
Trimethylbenzene—a toxic ingredient and known skin irritant (LL
is a cosmetic ingredient applied to skin); (5) he was not involved in
and did not witness or audit the Yantai plant’s complete LL
production after 2010, including during 2012 after Yantai altered
the LL manufacturing process significantly.

2
3
4
5
6
7

Raymat responds that it fulfilled its duties and that A&C Catalysts should be ordered to

8

pay the $150,000. Raymat contends that the order for relief did not call for some of the “eighty or

9

so questions” on A&C Catalysts’ list and that some of the questions A&C Catalysts asked during

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

the teleconference were not within the scope of the written questions previously disclosed.
To help resolve this dispute over post-trial relief, the parties jointly propose two potential

12

Rule 706 experts: (1) Dr. Edward Funk, located in Illinois, and (2) Dr. Eric Grulke, located in

13

Kentucky. The further case management schedule shall be as follows:

14

1.

By MARCH 5 AT NOON, A&C Catalysts shall file a list of its top seven grievances.

15

The list shall not exceed one page. Each grievance must be one standalone sentence and a single

16

point without any sub-items. Overbroad and/or non-compliant items may be quashed without

17

replacement. A&C Catalysts shall also file a declaration appending (1) a copy of the

18

teleconference transcript, highlighting and tagging the relevant passages, if any; (2) a copy of

19

A&C Catalysts’ written list of questions to Dr. Lin; and (3) all documents produced by Raymat

20

and Dr. Lin pursuant to the order for relief, tagging the relevant pages, if any. A&C Catalysts

21

may then file a brief (not to exceed twelve pages) explaining in detail each grievance. No

22

additional attachments.

23
24
25

2.

Raymat will then have until MARCH 12 AT NOON, to file a response (not to exceed

twelve pages). No attachments and no replies, please.
3.

Meanwhile, counsel for A&C Catalysts and counsel for Raymat shall please jointly

26

contact Dr. Funk and Dr. Grulke (via joint letter or telephone) to obtain a written estimate of the

27

cost for (1) reviewing the findings, conclusions, and order for relief (Dkt. No. 111); (2) reviewing

28

A&C Catalysts’ list of questions, the teleconference transcript, Raymat’s eleven-page process
2

1

description, and all documents turned over pursuant to the order for relief; (3) reviewing the

2

parties’ briefing; and (4) drafting and filing an expert report. For each of A&C Catalysts’

3

grievances, the expert’s report would recommend whether or not the information provided by

4

Raymat substantially complied with the order for relief and what information, if any, was

5

substantially deficient. The Rule 706 expert, if appointed, may have additional responsibilities

6

but for now, it will suffice to solicit this estimate. The written estimate should also include a

7

copy of the individual’s CV, the individual’s hourly rate, and a timeline for when this task would

8

be completed. No fees shall be charged for providing the estimate. To be clear, A&C Catalysts

9

and Raymat would split the eventual cost of the Rule 706 expert fifty-fifty (with Raymat’s share

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

to come out of the $150,000, until, if ever, that became exhausted and then would come from

11

Raymat directly), subject to potential readjustments if it turns out one side or the other was more

12

at fault. Neither side may have communications with either candidate except as above.

13
14
15

4.

By MARCH 16 AT NOON, the parties shall jointly file copies of the expert’s

estimates and timelines.
5.

By MARCH 16 AT NOON, the parties shall get themselves on Magistrate Judge

16

Ryu’s calendar for an in-person mediation. Within TWO CALENDAR DAYS of the conclusion of

17

the mediation, the parties shall jointly file a status statement (not to exceed five pages total)

18

stating what grievances (identify the grievance number from the list of grievances), if any,

19

remain.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: February 26, 2015.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
3