Mformation Technologies, Inc. v. Research in Motion Limited et al
Filing
575
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 389 (1) granting defendants' motion to strike errata sheet; and (2) denying without prejudice defendants' motion for evidentiary sanctions. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2011)
1
2
*E-FILED 07-20-2011*
3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
7
No. C08-04990 JW (HRL)
MFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
12
ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STRIKE ERRATA SHEET;
AND (2) DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED and
RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION,
[Re: Docket No. 389]
16
Defendants.
/
17
18
Dr. Rakesh Kushwaha is a co-founder of plaintiff Mformation Technologies, Inc.
19
(Mformation) and a named inventor of the ‘917 patent in suit.1 He was deposed in December
20
2010 in his capacity as Mformation’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) designee. During that deposition,
21
Kushwaha testified about the date of Mformation’s claimed reduction to practice. Based on that
22
testimony, defendants Research in Motion Limited and Research in Motion Corporation
23
(collectively, RIM) advised plaintiff about a potential new invalidity defense. Kushwaha
24
subsequently submitted an errata sheet changing his testimony as to the date of plaintiff’s
25
claimed reduction to practice. Mformation says that those changes were prompted by
26
Kushwaha’s post-deposition review of a certain version of plaintiff’s source code.
Defendants move for an order striking Kushwaha’s errata sheet. They also request
27
28
evidentiary sanctions with respect to the source code Kushwaha reviewed and which defendants
1
U.S. Patent No. 6,970,917
1
say Mformation waited nearly two years to produce. Mformation opposes the motion. Upon
2
consideration of the moving and responding papers, as well as the arguments of counsel, this
3
court grants RIM’s motion to strike and issues a report and recommendation re RIM’s request
4
for evidentiary sanctions.
5
A.
6
RIM’s Motion to Strike
Rule 30(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a deponent to correct his
7
deposition testimony, and “if there are changes in form or substance, to sign a statement listing
8
the changes and the reasons for making them.” FED. R. CIV. P. 30(e)(1)(B). Under Ninth
9
Circuit law, “Rule 30(e) is to be used for corrective, and not contradictory changes.”
Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balking Enterprises, Inc., 397 F.3d 1217, 1225-26 (9th Cir.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
2005). Courts have applied Hambleton to deposition changes made outside the summary
12
judgment context. See, e.g., Tourgeman v. Collins Fin. Servs., Inc., Case No. 08-CV-1392,
13
2010 WL 4817990 * 3 (S.D. Cal., Nov. 22, 2010); Lewis v. The CCPOA Benefit Trust Fund,
14
Case No. C08-03228 VRW (DMR), 2010 WL 3398521 * 3 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 27, 2010).
15
Mformation contends that Kushwaha’s changes are consistent with his prior testimony
16
(given in his capacity as an individual) about the source code version in question. On the record
17
presented, it is not clear to this court that Kushwaha was, in fact, referring to the same version
18
of the code in his prior individual deposition. In any event, defendants point out that
19
Kushwaha’s original (unchanged) Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition testimony is consistent
20
with the claimed date of reduction to practice that (1) Mformation identified, via interrogatory
21
answers, over two years ago and (2) remained unchanged over the course of seven supplemental
22
and amended interrogatory answers—that is, until earlier this year, after RIM advised plaintiff
23
of a potential new invalidity defense based on Kushwaha’s original Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)
24
testimony. Kushwaha did not equivocate or express confusion in providing the Fed. R. Civ. P.
25
30(b)(6) deposition testimony in question. Having reviewed Kushwaha’s testimony, this court
26
is persuaded that his errata sheet is contradictory to, and not merely corrective of, the testimony
27
he gave in his capacity as Mformation’s corporate designee. (See Thakur Decl., Ex. B; Zinanni
28
Decl., Ex. W). Accordingly, RIM’s motion to strike is granted.
2
1
2
B.
RIM’s Motion for Evidentiary Sanctions
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1), defendants request evidentiary sanctions for what
3
they believe to be Mformation’s suspiciously late production of the source code Kushwaha
4
reviewed after he was deposed as a corporate designee. Specifically, defendants seek an order
5
not only precluding Mformation from relying on the subject source code, but establishing as
6
true that the source code included all of the elements of the claimed invention by July 2000.
7
The court may impose sanctions for a party’s failure to provide information, unless the
8
failure was substantially justified or harmless. FED. R. CIV. P. 37(c)(1). Mformation has
9
provided no basis for this court to find that the belated production of the subject source code
was substantially justified. The source code reportedly was gathered by plaintiff for production
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
in early 2009, but was not actually produced until February 2011, a few months prior to the
12
close of discovery. Mformation says that the omission of the source code from its production
13
was an inadvertent error. But, plaintiff has no satisfactory explanation why the source code was
14
produced only this year; and, the record indicates that RIM requested full production of
15
plaintiff’s source code no less than ten times before Kushwaha was deposed in December 2010.
16
(Karson Decl. ¶ 3).
17
At the same time, however, the extent and severity of the prejudice to RIM is unclear.
18
RIM has had the source code in question for several months, and RIM received the code before
19
discovery closed (albeit, toward the very end of the discovery period). Additionally, plaintiff
20
points out that, prior to the close of discovery, it offered to let RIM depose Kushwaha again as
21
to the source code version in question. Mformation was also agreeable to a modification of the
22
case schedule to allow for supplemental expert disclosures and discovery. And, according to
23
plaintiff, the source code in question does not reduce to practice every element of Claim 1 of the
24
‘917 patent anyway. RIM says it does not know whether that last assertion is true. In essence,
25
defendants say that they have been prejudiced because they operated for two years under what
26
Mformation told them were the facts as to the claimed reduction to practice and made decisions
27
about what discovery to take based on the source code data Mformation actually
28
3
1
produced—only to have Mformation change its story and produce the subject source code at the
2
last minute.
3
If it is true that the subject source code does not include all elements of claim 1 of the
4
‘917 patent, then it would be unfair to impose sanctions that would be contrary to the actual
5
facts or that would prevent the actual facts from being presented. While this court has been told
6
what the parties contend is the truth, the actual facts about the subject source code cannot be
7
determined from the record presented. This court therefore declines to impose the sanctions
8
requested by RIM. In the interests of resolving this action on the merits, RIM may well be
9
entitled to some additional time to properly examine the subject source code and to conduct any
necessary follow-up discovery. Such relief, however, is conditioned on the presiding judge’s
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
determination that the period for fact and expert discovery should be re-opened for that purpose.
12
Depending on further developments in this case, this order is without prejudice to RIM to seek
13
evidentiary sanctions, as may be appropriate, from the presiding judge.
14
15
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 20, 2011
16
HOWARD R. LLOYD
17
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
1
5:08-cv-04990-JW Notice has been electronically mailed to:
2
Aaron D. Charfoos
3
Allen A. Arntsen
4
Amardeep Lal Thakur
5
Christopher R. Liro
6
Eugene Goryunov
7
Jessica Christine Kaiser
8
Justin E. Gray
9
Linda S. DeBruin ldebruin@kirkland.com, bridgett.ofosu@kirkland.com,
kathleen.cawley@kirkland.com, margaret.burke@kirkland.com
acharfoos@kirkland.com
aarntsen@foley.com, psorensen@foley.com
athakur@foley.com, dgrimes@foley.com
christopher.liro@kirkland.com
egoryunov@kirkland.com
jessica.kaiser@kirkland.com
jegray@foley.com, dgrimes@foley.com
10
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
Lisa Marie Noller
lnoller@foley.com
11
12
Marc Howard Cohen marc.cohen@kirkland.com, frank.carlow@kirkland.com,
lesley.ahlberg@kirkland.com, mary.nguyen@kirkland.com
13
Maria A. Maras
14
Meredith Zinanni meredith.zinanni@kirkland.com, cassandra.milleville@kirkland.com,
kimberly.davenport@kirkland.com, taylor.mccullough@kirkland.com
maria.maras@kirkland.com
15
Michael Anthony Parks
mparks@thompsoncoburn.com
16
Michael Daley Karson
michael.karson@kirkland.com
17
Michael S Feldberg
michael.feldberg@allenovery.com
18
Shawn Edward McDonald
SEMcDonald@foley.com
19
Tiffany Patrice Cunningham
tiffany.cunningham@kirkland.com
20
21
Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?