Core Laboratories v. Spectrum Tracer Services LLC et al

Filing 577

ORDER granting 571 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider and Offer of Proof Regarding the Video Deposition of Keith Moon and Kevin Fisher (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 3/21/2016. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CORE LABORATORIES LP,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPECTRUM TRACER SERVICES,
L.L.C., STEVE FAUROT, and KELLY
BRYSON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-11-1157-M

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants Spectrum Tracer Services, L.L.C. and Steve Faurot’s
(collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Reconsider and Offer of Proof Regarding the Video
Deposition of Keith Moon and Kevin Fisher, filed March 17, 2016. On March 18, 2016, plaintiff
responded. Based on the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.
Defendants move this Court to reconsider its ruling sustaining plaintiff’s objections to
portions of the deposition testimonies of Keith Moon (“Moon”) and Kevin Fisher (“Fisher”).
Specifically, Defendants request the Court to reconsider its ruling prohibiting Moon and Fisher,
as lay witnesses, from referring to whether plaintiff regarded its tracing technology as “secret,”
in the context of it being a trade secret. Defendants seek to introduce the deposition testimonies
of Moon and Fisher to show the efforts taken by plaintiff in keeping its tracing technology a
secret. Plaintiff contends that the Court’s ruling on plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 1, limiting
opinion testimony of whether Core’s tracing technology was a trade secret to qualified experts,
and its ruling sustaining plaintiff’s objections to Defendants’ deposition designations of Moon
and Fisher were correct, and, therefore, the Court should deny Defendants’ motion.

“Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct error or
prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of the Paraclete v. John Does I-XVI, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012
(10th Cir. 2000). A motion to reconsider is appropriate “where the court has misapprehended the
facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law” but is not appropriate “to revisit issues already
addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.” Id.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that it now has a
complete understanding of why Defendants seek to introduce the deposition testimonies of
Fisher and Moon, and in order to prevent a manifest injustice, the testimonies of Fisher and
Moon as to the efforts plaintiff took to keep its tracing technology secret should be admitted. The
Court further finds that the designated testimonies at issue here are not based on scientific,
technical, or other specialized knowledge of Fisher and Moon, but are based on Fisher and
Moon’s personal knowledge and experience with plaintiff’s tracing technology. The Court finds
this testimony is well within the confines of Federal Rule of Evidence 701. Therefore, the Court
reverses its ruling regarding the following deposition designations of Moon and Fisher: (1) Page
16, line 16-25, page 17, lines 9-19, page 22, lines 2-8, page 30, lines 4-14 of Moon’s deposition
and (2) Page 57, lines 12-15, page 57 line 18 – page 58, line 1, and page 66, lines 3-5 of Fisher’s
deposition. Further, the Court will give a limiting instruction to the jury prior to the showing of
Moon and Fisher’s deposition testimonies as follows:
In the following video deposition testimony of Keith Moon [Kevin Fisher] there will be
instances when Moon [Fisher] discusses his thoughts as to whether plaintiff’s tracing
technology was regarded as a secret or trade secret. Moon [Fisher]’s opinions are not
being introduced to prove that Core’s tracing technology was (or was not) a trade secret
but to show the efforts Core took in keeping its tracing technology secret.

2

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to
Reconsider and Offer of Proof Regarding the Video Deposition of Keith Moon and Kevin Fisher
[docket no. 571], VACATES its rulings in its March 14, 2016 Order as to plaintiff’s objections
to Defendants’ deposition designations of Keith Moon and Kevin Fisher, as stated above, and
OVERRULES plaintiff’s objections to Defendants’ deposition designations of Keith Moon and
Kevin Fisher, as stated above.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of March, 2016.

3