Venture Corporation et al v. Barrett

Filing 282

ORDER DENYING SANCTIONS AND POST-TRIAL DISCOVERY by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal denying 255 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
VENTURE CORPORATION, et al.,

7

Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9

JAMES P. BARRETT,

10

ORDER DENYING SANCTIONS AND
POST-TRIAL DISCOVERY
(Re: Docket No. 255)

Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG

12
In the aftermath of trial, Plaintiffs Venture Corporation Ltd. and Venture Design Services,

13
14

Inc. move for sanctions, post-trial discovery and an extension of deadlines.1 The Ventures identify

15

concerns with the following conduct during trial by Barrett and his counsel:


Proposed Trial Exhibit 655: Barrett attempted to introduce into evidence proposed trial
exhibit 655, a VDSI email that he had not previously produced even though it was
responsive to the Ventures’ requests for production.2 The court excluded the document
from evidence, because it “should have been produced.”3



16

Proposed Trial Exhibit 591: Similarly, Barrett’s proposed trial exhibit 591 also had not
been produced during discovery.4 Barrett stated that he did not intend to admit it.5 The
Ventures’ counsel responded that this resolved the issue for the time being, and proposed
trial exhibit 591 did not enter into evidence.6

17
18
19
20
21
1

See Docket No. 255.

2

See Docket No. 242 at 1319-1333.

3

See id. at 1333:9-11.

4

See Docket No. 243 at 1576-79.

5

See id. at 1578:2-21.

27

6

See id. at 1578:18-1579:15.

28

1
Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG
ORDER DENYING SANCTIONS AND POST-TRIAL DISCOVERY

22
23
24
25
26



1
2
3
4

Inventions Journal: At the Ventures’ request, Barrett agreed to submit his original
Inventions Journal to the jury during deliberations.7 However, the Inventions Journal
contained three loose leaf photocopies of produced documents, Bates stamped “Barrett
2018-2020,” which had not been in the journal when it was originally produced to the
Ventures.8 The loose leaf pages were excluded and the jury received the Inventions
Journal in its original form.9
The Ventures also raise the following concerns:

5



Inconsistent answers: Barrett’s statements in trial exhibit 79, a declaration that Barrett
submitted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in connection with the disputed
inventions, contradict his statements in trial exhibit 86, Barrett’s Answers to VDSI’s First
Set of Interrogatories.10 The Ventures cross-examined Barrett about these exhibits at
trial.11



6

Trial Exhibit 546: Trial exhibit 546 is a paper copy of a document that Barrett claimed to
have prepared for VDSI’s patent attorney, Craig Stainbrook, in 2006.12 Neither the
Ventures nor Stainbrook possessed an electronic record of the document, and Barrett stated
that he no longer had a copy of the electronic file.13

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The Ventures request an order (1) granting sanctions against Barrett and his counsel, including

12

fees, for attempting to introduce documents as exhibits that Barrett did not produce during

13

discovery, and for allegedly attempting to pass loose leaf pages to the jury in the Inventions

14

Journal; (2) compelling the production of all documents relating to Venture’s business that were

15

previously requested during discovery but were not produced; (3) compelling the deposition of

16

Barrett regarding his conduct in this case; (4) compelling the preservation and forensic

17

examination of electronic media in Barrett’s possession that has stored files that he failed to

18

produce in this case; and (5) extending the 14-day period established by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 for

19
20
21
22
23

7

See Docket No. 246 at 2425:20-2426:3.

8

See Docket No. 247 at 2459:1-2464:18; Docket No. 255-2 at ¶¶ 7, 9.

9

See Docket No. 247 at 2464:15-18.

10

See Docket No. 255 at 7.

11

See Docket No. 244 at 1964:1-1966:15, 1970:25-1972:5.

12

See Docket No. 255 at 7.

13

See id. at 7-8.

24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG
ORDER DENYING SANCTIONS AND POST-TRIAL DISCOVERY

1

moving for sanctions post-trial.14

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv) allows a party to move for an order compelling the

3

production of documents when a party fails to produce documents. Under the dictate of Fed. R.

4

Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C), the court must “strike[] the proper balance between permitting relevant

5

discovery and limiting the scope and burdens of the discovery to what is proportional to the

6

case.”15 Moreover, “[b]road discretion is vested in the trial court to permit or deny discovery, and

7

its decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that denial of

8

discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.”16 That is, the

9

court must weigh whether the requested discovery is proportional to the needs of the case in the

10

present context and balance that against any prejudice to the moving party.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) provides that when a party or its counsel violates a discovery

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

order, the court must order the party, its counsel or both to pay the “reasonable expenses,

13

including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure” to comply with a discovery order, unless the

14

failure was “substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”

15

The Ventures are correct that nothing about the present posture of the case renders the

16

court powerless to consider their request.17 But the Ventures’ requests for relief do not meet the

17

above standards. They have not shown that the requested discovery is proportional considering

18

the needs of the case, which completed the trial stage, and which they won, nor have they shown

19

that they suffered prejudice at trial or that they would suffer prejudice in the future from being

20

denied the relief they seek. Neither proposed trial exhibit 655 nor proposed trial exhibit 591

21
22
23

14

See id. at 14-15.

15

24

Kaiser v. BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. C–12–01311 DMR, 2013 WL 1856578, at *3
(N.D. Cal. May 2, 2013).

25

16

26
27
28

Hallet v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Goehring v. Brophy, 94 F.3d 1294,
1305 (9th Cir. 1996)).
17

See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-46 (1991).

3
Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG
ORDER DENYING SANCTIONS AND POST-TRIAL DISCOVERY

1

entered into evidence or were presented to the jury, and the extra pages were removed from the

2

Inventions Journal before the jury received it.18 Barrett also has submitted a sworn declaration

3

that no further responsive materials remain in his possession.19 As for Barrett’s inconsistent

4

statements, the Ventures had the opportunity to cross-examine him about these inconsistencies.20

5

As for trial exhibit 546, the Ventures did not identify any prejudice caused by Barrett’s failure to

6

produce the electronic version of trial exhibit 546 or other Venture files still in his possession, if

7

any. The jury largely found in favor of the Ventures at trial, and the court granted the Ventures’

8

renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law,21 such that the Ventures were the prevailing

9

parties in all respects.22 In short, the Ventures have identified no prejudice that they suffered, and
no prejudice that they would suffer. As for their request for fees under Fed. R. Civ. P.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

37(b)(2)(C), the Ventures have not identified a discovery order that Barrett, his counsel, or both

12

violated.
All requested relief is DENIED.

13
14

SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: December 15, 2015
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

18

See Docket No. 242 at 1333:9-11; Docket No. 243 at 1578:18-1579:15; Docket No. 247 at
2464:15-18.
19

See Docket No. 264 at ¶ 7.

20

See Docket No. 244 at 1964:1-1966:15, 1970:25-1972:5.

21

See Docket No. 278 at 6-9.

22

See Docket No. 279 at 2.

24
25
26
27
28

4
Case No. 5:13-cv-03384-PSG
ORDER DENYING SANCTIONS AND POST-TRIAL DISCOVERY