FastVDO LLC v. Apple Inc. et al

Filing 224

ORDER Denying Defendant Samsung's #213 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Marilyn L. Huff on 12/28/16. (dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

Consolidated Case No.: 3:16-cv-00385H-WVG
LEAD CASE

FASTVDO LLC,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

Member Cases:
3:16-cv-00386-H-WVG
3:16-cv-00390-H-WVG
3:16-cv-00394-H-WVG
3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG
3:16-cv-00396-H-WVG

v.

13
14

AT&T MOBILITY LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE

17
18

[Doc. No. 213.]

19
20

On December 19, 2016, Defendant Samsung1 filed a motion to strike the first

21

supplemental expert report of Dr. Oded Gottesman pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

22

Procedure 37(c). (Doc. No. 213.) On December 20, 2016, the Court held an initial

23

telephonic hearing on the motion to strike. (Doc. No. 216.) Philip Wang appeared for

24

Plaintiff FastVDO LLC. John E. Nilsson appeared for Defendant Samsung. On December

25

23, 2016, FastVDO filed its response in opposition to Samsung’s motion to strike. (Doc.

26
27
28

1

Defendant “Samsung” is comprised of Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd.
1
3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG

1

No. 220.) For the reasons below, the Court denies Samsung’s motion to strike.

2

On April 5, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling order for the consolidated action

3

setting forth a deadline of November 14, 2016 for the exchange of opening expert reports.

4

(Doc. No. 125 at 13.) On November 14, 2016, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion

5

for an extension of certain deadlines in the scheduling order and set November 30, 2016 as

6

the new deadline for the exchange of opening expert reports. (Doc. No. 207.)

7

On November 30, 2016, FastVDO served Samsung with the Opening Expert Report

8

of Dr. Oded Gottsman regarding Samsung’s infringement. (Doc. No. 213-2, Lee Decl. ¶

9

10, Ex. 8.) On December 10, 2016, FastVDO served Samsung with the First Supplemental

10

Expert Report of Dr. Oded Gottsman regarding Samsung’s infringement. (Doc. No. 213-

11

2, Lee Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. 11.) By the present motion, Samsung moves to strike Dr. Gottsman’s

12

First Supplemental Expert Report pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c) on the

13

grounds that it was served after the deadline for opening expert reports had passed. (Doc.

14

No. 213-1 at 4-7.)

15

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) requires the parties to disclose the

16

identity of each expert witness ‘accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by

17

the witness.’” Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th

18

Cir. 2001) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)). Rule 26(a)(2)(D) further provides that “[a] party

19

must make these disclosures at the times and in the sequence that the court orders.” “Rule

20

37(c)(1) gives teeth to these requirements by forbidding the use at trial of any information

21

required to be disclosed by Rule 26(a) that is not properly disclosed.” Id. “Exclusion of an

22

expert witness report is an appropriate remedy for failing to fulfill the required disclosure

23

requirements of Rule 26(a).” Zest IP Holdings, LLC v. Implant Direct Mfg., No. CIV. 10-

24

0541-GPC WVG, 2013 WL 6686809, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2013); see also Yeti by

25

Molly, 259 F.3d at 1106 (explaining that Rule 37(c)(1) is “ a ‘self-executing,’ ‘automatic’

26

sanction”).

27

Nevertheless, under Rule 37(c)(1), “[t]he information may be introduced if the

28

parties’ failure to disclose the required information is substantially justified or harmless.”
2
3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG

1

Yeti by Molly, 259 F.3d at 1106. The party facing sanctions bears to burden of proving

2

substantial justification or harmlessness. See id. Further, a district court has “particularly

3

wide latitude” in determining whether to issue sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1). Id.

4

Samsung argues that the Court should strike the supplemental expert report pursuant

5

to Rule 37(c)(1) because it was served 10 days after the deadline for opening expert reports,

6

and FastVDO has failed to provide a sufficient justification for the untimely report. (Doc.

7

No. 213-1 at 1, 4-6.) In response, FastVDO argues that its service of the supplemental

8

expert report on December 10, 2016 was substantially justified because FastVDO only

9

received the relevant Qualcomm source code on December 7, 2016, and its service of the

10

report was harmless because Samsung has suffered no prejudice. (Doc. No. 220 at 1, 5-8.)

11

After reviewing the parties’ arguments and the record, the Court concludes that

12

FastVDO has provided sufficient justification for serving the supplemental expert report

13

on December 10, 2016. FastVDO only received the relevant Qualcomm source code on

14

December 7, 2016, and it was able to supplement Dr. Gottesman’s expert report with the

15

source code and provide it to Samsung within three days. (Doc. No. 220-1, Wang Decl. ¶¶

16

16, 22, Exs. 12, 15.) Further, the Court rejects Samsung’s contention that FastVDO was

17

not diligent in seeking Qualcomm’s source code. This Court has previously recognized

18

“the difficulty in obtaining third-party discovery, in particular source code which is heavily

19

protected by companies.” Multimedia Patent Trust v. Apple Inc., No. 10-CV-2618-H KSC,

20

2012 WL 4547449, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012).

21

In addition, the Court concludes that FastVDO’s service of the supplemental expert

22

report was harmless, particularly in light of the fact that the Court granted Samsung a 13-

23

day extension of the deadline for Samsung to serve its rebuttal expert report on

24

infringement.2 (See Doc. No. 216.) Further, the supplemental expert report was served in

25

advance of the scheduling of expert depositions, (Doc. No. 220 at 7), and well in advance

26

27

2

28

Indeed, in its motion, the only prejudice identified by Samsung in its motion is having a
shortened time period to analyze and respond to the supplemental report. (Doc. No. 213-1 at 6.) The
Court alleviated this issue by granting the 13-day extension of time for service of the rebuttal report.
3
3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG

1

of the deadlines for the parties to file their motions for summary judgment and Daubert

2

motions. Accordingly, the Court, exercising its sound discretion, declines to strike the

3

supplemental expert report and denies Samsung’s motion to strike.3

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED: December 28, 2016

6

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

27

3

28

Although the Court declines to strike the expert report on the grounds that it is untimely, the
Court reminds the parties that they must comply with the deadlines set forth in the Court’s scheduling
orders.
4
3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG