PQ Labs, Inc. et al v. Qi et al

Filing 142

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken RESOLVING ( 115 , 118 ) MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE SEALING MOTIONS. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2014)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

PQ LABS, INC., et al.,

7

Plaintiffs,

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. 12-0450 CW
ORDER RESOLVING
MOTIONS IN LIMINE
(Docket Nos. 115,
118) AND DIRECTING
DEFENDANTS TO FILE
SEALING MOTIONS

v.
YANG QI, ZAAGTECH, INC., JINPENG
LI, and HAIPENG LI,
Defendants.
________________________________/

12
On February 26, 2014, the Court held a pretrial conference

13
14

and heard arguments regarding the parties’ motions in limine.

15

After considering the parties’ oral argument and submissions, the

16

Court now issues the following rulings:

17

I.

18

Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine
A.

19
20

No. 1: Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Sandeep
Chatterjee Based on Hearsay

This motion is DENIED as moot.

Defendants do not oppose this

21

motion and will not seek to solicit testimony from Chatterjee

22

regarding the statements Defendants made to him.

23
24
25

B.

No. 2: Motion to Exclude Testimony Regarding the
Potential to Reverse-Engineer PQ Labs’ Trade Secrets

This motion is DENIED.

As noted at the hearing, evidence

26

regarding the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ efforts to prevent

27

reverse-engineering of its technology is relevant to, although not

28

1

determinative of, whether that technology was the “subject of

2

efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain

3

its secrecy.”

4

C.

5
6
7
8

Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(d).

No. 3: Motion to Exclude Testimony of Sandeep Chatterjee
Regarding the Reasonableness of PQ Labs’ Efforts to
Protect its Trade Secrets

This motion is GRANTED.

Defendants disclosed Chatterjee as a

rebuttal expert and therefore may not present his opinions on
subject matter that was not discussed in the report of Plaintiffs’

9
technology expert, Andrew Wolfe.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Chatterjee may, however, testify regarding specific means of

12

protecting circuit board technology against reverse-engineering.

13

II.

14

Defendants’ Motions in Limine
A.

No. 1: Motion to Exclude All Testimony and Opinions of
Mark Berkman

15
This motion is DENIED.

Defendants’ objections to Berkman’s

16
17

report go principally to the weight, rather than the

18

admissibility, of his damages analysis.

19

F.3d 691, 695 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting that “objections to a

20

study’s completeness generally go to ‘the weight, not the

21

admissibility of the statistical evidence’ and should be addressed

22

See Obrey v. Johnson, 400

by rebuttal, not exclusion” (citations omitted)); Manpower, Inc.

23
v. Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania, 732 F.3d 796, 808 (7th Cir. 2013)
24
25

(“[T]he selection of the variables to include in a regression

26

analysis is normally a question that goes to the probative weight

27

of the analysis rather than to its admissibility.” (citing

28

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 400 (1986))).
2

1
2
3
4

B.

This motion is DENIED.

Plaintiffs have represented that

Casey will only be called, if at all, as a rebuttal witness.
C.

5
6

No. 2: Motion to Exclude All Testimony of Raymond Casey

No. 3: Motion to Exclude Confidentiality Agreements Not
Previously Disclosed or Produced During Discovery

This motion is DENIED.

Plaintiffs have shown that their

7

shown that their delay in producing these confidentiality

8

agreements was “harmless” and did not hinder Defendants’ ability

9

to prepare for trial.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).

III. Exhibits Filed in Support of Defendants’ Briefs on Motions in
Limine
Defendants have redacted portions of several exhibits filed

13

in support of their motions in limine and their opposition to

14

Plaintiffs’ motions in limine.

15

Declarations of Perry Narancic.

16

leave of the Court to file these documents under seal, as required

17

by Civil Local Rule 79-5.

See Docket Nos. 117 & 138,
However, they failed to obtain

Accordingly, within five days of this

18
order, Defendants must either file unredacted versions of these
19
documents in the public record or file a motion to seal these
20
21

documents.

Any motion to seal “must be narrowly tailored to seek

22

sealing only of sealable material” and must comport fully with the

23

local rules.

Civil L.R. 79-5(d).

24

CONCLUSION

25

The parties’ motions in limine (Docket Nos. 115, 118) are

26

resolved as set forth above.

A bench trial will be held beginning

27
at 8:30 a.m. on March 10, 2014.

If this case fails to settle at

28
3

1

the February 27, 2014 settlement conference, the parties shall

2

attend another settlement conference in person on or before the

3

first day of trial.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated:

7

2/28/2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

8
9

cc:

NJV

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
4