Citcon USA, LLC v. RiverPay, Inc. et al

Filing 409

ORDER AFTER PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 11/20/2019. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2019)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 CITCON USA LLC, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 v. Case No. 18-cv-02585 NC ORDER AFTER PRETRIAL CONFERENCE RIVERPAY INC., and others, Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This order summarizes topics addressed and decided today at the pretrial conference. Ordered by the Court: 1. Defendants’ motion to bifurcate punitive damages at trial: denied for the reasons stated. Trial will proceed with the phases set forth in ECF 400. 2. Jury trial will commence December 9 at 9:00 a.m. as previously scheduled. 8 jurors, with no alternates, to be selected. 3 peremptory strikes per side. Parties should plan for opening statements on afternoon of Dec. 9. Plaintiffs declined opportunity to advance start of trial to December 5 or 6. As previously ordered (ECF 169) each side will have 15 hours of total trial time, excluding jury selection. Time spent on jury questions and answers by witnesses will be 1 2 3 4 allocated to the party that called the witness. 3. Defendants’ objection to showing PTO video on trade secrets during voir dire sustained. Court will show potential jurors implicit bias video. 4. Citcon’s motion to pre-admit source code exhibits denied without prejudice, 5 with parties encouraged to confer further as to admissibility of these and other 6 trial exhibits. 7 5. Court declined proposed voir dire by Citcon as overly argumentative and 8 indicated it would ask some to all of questions proposed by defendants. Both 9 sides will have opportunity for voir dire. 6. Parties will make copies of the completed jury surveys. They are asked to return 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 original plus 2 copy sets to Court. Parties ordered to return to Court or destroy 12 and certify as destroyed all copies of jury surveys within 30 days after judgment, 13 or a later time if ordered by the Court. 14 Further orders to be issued by the Court before trial: 15 1. Revision to jury survey, with addition of questions on bias for/against ethnicity, 16 national origin, immigrants, and Chinese. 17 2. Revised statement of case based on shared edits from pretrial conference. 18 3. Opening and closing jury instructions. 19 4. Order addressing sealing procedures for trial in response to ECF 406. 20 5. Order identifying trial courtroom (5 or 7). 21 6. Order for refreshments for jurors during trial. 22 7. Order hardware and software for jury deliberations phase after feedback from 23 trial counsel (see below). 24 Trial counsel to confer further with each other on these issues/to do before trial: 25 1. Determine hardware and software for the jury to use during deliberations phase. 26 If parties wish to use Court equipment, they must alert the courtroom deputy by 27 December 9. Parties encouraged to test the technology before trial. 28 2. Preference for courtroom 5 or 7. Communicate to courtroom deputy by 2 1 November 27. 2 3. Order trial transcripts. 3 4. Reduce excessive trial exhibits and separate exhibits into admissible 4 components. 5 5. Group witnesses for efficient presentation. 6 6. Assess and discuss proposed redactions of trial exhibits. 7 7. Deposition excerpts. 8 8. Alternative videos/materials to educate potential jurors on trade secrets. Propose 9 10 to Court by November 27. 9. Meet and confer and file proposed jury verdict form(s) by December 4. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 15 Dated: November 20, 2019 _____________________________________ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?