Tessera, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. et al

Filing 286

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE TESSERAS 279 MOTION TO ADOPT THE SPECIAL MASTERS FIRST RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE EXPERT REPORT OF CHARLES MOONEY AND DENYING AS MOOT TESSERAS 278 MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/13/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

TESSERA, INC.,

4
5
6

No. C 12-692 CW

Plaintiff,
v.

7

MOTOROLA, INC.; QUALCOMM, INC.;
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.;
and ATI TECHNOLOGIES, ULC,

8

Defendants.

9

/

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

ORDER DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
TESSERA’S MOTION
TO ADOPT THE
SPECIAL MASTER’S
FIRST
RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING THE
EXPERT REPORT OF
CHARLES MOONEY
(Docket No. 279)
AND DENYING AS
MOOT TESSERA’S
MOTION TO SHORTEN
TIME (Docket No.
278)

On July 30, 2013, the Special Master issued a report and
recommendation regarding Plaintiff Tessera, Inc.’s motion to
strike the May 31, 2013 expert report of Mr. Charles Mooney and
preclude him from testifying as an expert or fact witness at
trial.

Docket No. 274.

The Special Master presented the Court

with two alternative recommendations regarding the resolution of
the motion.

In the first, the Special Master recommended that the

Court grant Tessera’s motion, strike the expert report and
preclude Mr. Mooney from testifying as an expert at trial but
allow him to testify as a percipient witness, permit Tessera to
take his deposition in this capacity and allow Tessera appropriate
follow-up discovery on the subjects of Mr. Mooney’s deposition
testimony.

In the second, the Special Master recommended that the

Court deny Tessera’s motion and decline to strike the expert
report or preclude Mr. Mooney’s expert testimony but permit

1

Tessera to take both a fact deposition and an expert deposition

2

from Mr. Mooney and engage in appropriate follow-up discovery.

3

On August 6, 2013, Tessera moved the Court to adopt the

4

Special Master’s first recommendation.

5

also filed a motion to shorten time on its motion to adopt the

6

report and recommendation, so that Tessera would know the status

7

of Mr. Mooney’s expert report prior to August 30, 2013, when its

8

rebuttal expert reports are due.

9

Docket No. 279.

Tessera

Docket No. 278.

On August 8, 2013, Defendants Qualcomm, Inc., ASE, Freescale

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

and ChipMOS filed a response to the Special Master’s report and

11

recommendation.

12

have now agreed to withdraw Mr. Mooney’s expert report and not to

13

call Mr. Mooney as an expert witness at trial.

14

state that the parties are working to reach a joint stipulation to

15

submit to the Court regarding Mr. Mooney’s deposition and

16

testimony as a fact witness.

Docket No. 282.

Defendants represent that they

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Defendants also

1

Because Mr. Mooney’s expert report has now been withdrawn,

2

the Court DENIES AS MOOT Tessera’s motion to shorten time (Docket

3

No. 278).

4

report has been withdrawn, that they will not call Mr. Mooney as

5

an expert witness at trial and that the parties are presently

6

working together to reach an agreement regarding his deposition

7

and testimony as a fact witness, the Court DENIES Tessera’s motion

8

to adopt the Special Master’s report and recommendation (Docket

9

No. 279).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Further, based on Defendants’ representations that this

This denial is without prejudice to Tessera renewing

its motion if the parties are unable to agree to a stipulation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated: 8/13/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3