J.S.T. Corporation v. Robert Bosch LLC et al

Filing 562

ORDER Denying 538 539 Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions. Signed by District Judge Victoria A. Roberts. (LVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
J.S.T. CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-13842
Honorable Victoria A. Roberts

ROBERT BOSCH LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS [ECF Nos. 538, 539]
J.S.T. Corporation (“JST”) brings this suit against Robert Bosch LLC,
Robert Bosch GmbH, and Bosch Automotive Products Co., Ltd.
(collectively, “Bosch”) for misappropriation of its trade secrets
Before the Court is JST’s motion for sanctions against Bosch. [ECF
Nos. 538, 539]. The motion is fully briefed.
JST says Bosch intentionally withheld 24 documents. It says Bosch
knew the documents existed as early as November 2016; knew they were
discoverable; failed to produce them in response to discovery requests;
and then failed to produce them after ordered to do so.

Bosch eventually produced the documents for in camera review, and
the Court ordered Bosch to produce them to JST.
JST says Bosch’s failure to produce the documents until after the
Court reviewed them in camera prejudiced it in three ways: (1) it was
unable to question Bosch witnesses during depositions about the contents
of the documents and Bosch’s, and the witnesses’, related actions; (2) its
experts were not able to use the information to form their opinions because
Bosch produced the documents after experts filed their reports; and (3) it
could have used the information in the documents in support of its earlier
motion for sanctions regarding Bosch’s destruction of Karen Yang
documents.
Bosch says sanctions are not warranted. Bosch says it complied with
the Court’s order and produced the in camera documents to JST.
Moreover, it says that even if it delayed in the production of the documents,
the delay was harmless and not sanctionable under Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(c)(1). The Court agrees with Bosch.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) demands sanctions for a
party’s failure “to provide information or identify a witness as required by
Rule 26(a) or (e) . . . unless the failure was substantially justified or is
harmless.” A “harmless” violation “involves an honest mistake on the part

2

of a party coupled with sufficient knowledge on the part of the other party.”
Howe v. City of Akron, 801 F.3d 718, 747 (6th Cir. 2015). In determining
whether a party’s late disclosure is harmless, the Court considers five
factors: “(1) the surprise to the party against whom the evidence would be
offered; (2) the ability of that party to cure the surprise; (3) the extent to
which allowing the evidence would disrupt the trial; (4) the importance of
the evidence; and (5) the nondisclosing party’s explanation for its failure to
disclose the evidence.” Id. at 748 (citation omitted).
The in camera documents consisted of Bosch’s preliminary
presentations related to a Foxconn workshop. Bosch produced many
documents concerning this workshop and the presentations, including the
final versions of the presentations. Bosch explains that it did not produce
the preliminary presentations because they were marked as privileged.
The Court finds that Bosch sets forth a sufficient reason for failing to
produce the documents originally.
Additionally, considering the extent of documents Bosch produced
regarding the Foxconn workshop, and considering that Bosch produced the
final versions of the presentations, JST had sufficient knowledge
concerning the information included in the few late-disclosed documents,

3

and it could not have been surprised by the information in the preliminary
presentations.
Bosch’s late disclosure of the in-camera documents was harmless.
The Court DENIES JST’s motion for sanctions.
However, the Court warns the parties that it will not tolerate further
misconduct or gamesmanship. If either party fails to comply with its
obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, fails to comply with
an order of the Court, or fails to engage with the opposing party/counsel in
a conciliatory, good faith manner, the Court will consider all available
sanctions – up to and including dismissing the proceeding in whole or part,
rendering a default judgment, and/or issuing meaningful monetary
sanctions against the noncompliant party and/or counsel.
IT IS ORDERED.
s/ Victoria A. Roberts
Victoria A. Roberts
United States District Judge
Dated: April 21, 2021

4