Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Inc. et al

Filing 884

ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the Order dated September 30, 2020, granting in part and denying in part Syntel's motion in limine seeking to preclude Mr. Britven's expert testimony is supplemented and modified as follows. It is f urther ORDERED that regarding the draft final jury charge referred to in the joint letter at Dkt. No. 877, the parties shall provide any revised jointly proposed damages instructions by October 16, 2020. As to any remaining instructions, the parti es shall use the substantive excerpt of the preliminary charge as the base document, add any instructions that the parties believe will be necessary in light of the evidence in redline and submit those instructions by October 19, 2020. By October 19, 2020, the parties shall also provide any revised jointly proposed verdict form. The parties are reminded that these submissions should be "joint" and shall attempt to resolve all objections. (And as further set forth herein.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 10/15/2020) (jca)

Case 1:15-cv-00211-LGS-SDA Document 884 Filed 10/15/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
:
SYNTEL STERLING BEST SHORES
:
MAURITIUS LIMITED, et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendants, :
:
:
-against:
THE TRIZETTO GROUP, et al.,
:
:
Defendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs. :
------------------------------------------------------------ X

15 Civ. 211 (LGS)
ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
WHEREAS, per the Order dated October 9, 2020, Defendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs
The TriZetto Group, Inc. and Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. (together, “TriZetto”) and
Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendants Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited and Syntel,
Inc. (together, “Syntel”) filed submissions on their respective positions as to whether damages
for avoided costs are available in equity for the New York trade secret misappropriation claim,
and if not, what if any impact such a ruling would have on the evidence to be presented at trial.
It is hereby
ORDERED that the Order dated September 30, 2020, granting in part and denying in
part Syntel’s motion in limine seeking to preclude Mr. Britven’s expert testimony is
supplemented and modified as follows. The Court has determined that avoided cost damages are
not available for the New York trade secret misappropriation claim under E.J. Brooks Co. v.
Cambridge Sec. Seals, 31 N.Y.3d 441 (2018). Although the E.J. Brooks dissent questioned
whether the majority’s holding was limited to whether avoided cost damages are available as
legal damages, regardless of their availability in equity, the opinion did not include any limiting

Case 1:15-cv-00211-LGS-SDA Document 884 Filed 10/15/20 Page 2 of 3

language and addressed the certified question of “[w]hether, under New York law, a plaintiff
asserting claims of misappropriation of a trade secret . . . can recover damages that are measured
by the costs the defendant avoided due to its unlawful activity.” Id. at 444. Accordingly, Mr.
Britven may testify about avoided cost damages only to the extent relevant to the DTSA claim,
and shall not testify about such damages to the extent exclusively relevant to the New York
misappropriation of trade secrets claim. The jury will not be asked for an advisory verdict on
avoided costs for the New York claim.
Syntel’s arguments that avoided cost evidence should not be presented to the jury even on
the DTSA claim are rejected. First, the argument is beyond the scope of the Court’s Order (Dkt.
No. 870) that the parties address the availability of avoided costs damages on the New York
misappropriation claim. Second, the argument appears to be a motion to reconsider the Court’s
ruling on Plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude the Mr. Britven’s testimony, without identifying
or satisfying the requirements for such a motion. See Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc.
v. YLL Irrevocable Tr., 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013) (stating that “[a] motion for
reconsideration should be granted only when [a party] identifies an intervening change of
controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted)). Third, Mr. Britven’s testimony on
avoided costs is sufficiently reliable and relevant to be heard by the jury. His expert opinion is
the result of the application of a reliable methodology to the facts of the case, and is relevant for
TriZetto’s damages on the DTSA claim. The testimony’s probative value outweighs any
prejudicial effect, as the testimony is prejudicial only if one accepts Syntel’s argument that his
avoided cost calculation is overstated and therefore incorrect. That is a matter of reasonable
dispute and proper for the jury to decide. “Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary

2

Case 1:15-cv-00211-LGS-SDA Document 884 Filed 10/15/20 Page 3 of 3

evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means
of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.” Amorgianos v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 303
F.3d 256, 267 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S.
579, 596 (1993)).
TriZetto’s argument that deciding now whether avoided costs damages are available on
the New York claim would risk confusing the jury is also unpersuasive. To the contrary, ruling
on this issue now will clarify for the jury what damages are available on what claims and,
specifically, that avoided costs damages are available only on the DTSA claim and not its New
York counterpart. It is further
ORDERED that regarding the draft final jury charge referred to in the joint letter at Dkt.
No. 877, the parties shall provide any revised jointly proposed damages instructions by October
16, 2020. As to any remaining instructions, the parties shall use the substantive excerpt of the
preliminary charge as the base document, add any instructions that the parties believe will be
necessary in light of the evidence in redline and submit those instructions by October 19, 2020.
By October 19, 2020, the parties shall also provide any revised jointly proposed verdict form.
The parties are reminded that these submissions should be “joint” and shall attempt to resolve all
objections.

Dated: October 15, 2020
New York, New York

3