ARCONIC INC. v. NOVELIS INC. et al
Filing
479
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 473 Objections filed by ARCONIC INC. to R&R #31, as explained therein. Signed by Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 12/17/19. (mh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ARCONIC INC.,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-1434
JUDGE JOY FLOWERS CONTI
)
)
)
v.
NOVELIS INC. and NOVELIS CORP,
Defendants.
)
)
)
OPINION
On November 18, 2019, the special master entered R&R #31, which granted the request
by Arconic, Inc. (“Arconic”) to depose Thomas Boney (“Boney”), rather than Rainer Kossak.
Arconic, although the special master ruled in its favor, objects (ECF No. 473) to the last three
sentences of the special master’s recommendation, which provide:
The questioning should be “targeted” within the meaning of the CMO (which as
discussed in Report & Recommendation No. 29, is not the default “relevant and
proportional” rule, given that the parties have already conducted substantial
discovery, including depositions, on the trade secret claims). The targeted
questioning must be limited to issues pertaining to Novelis’ counterclaims and not
an improper attempt at questioning Mr. Boney on issues pertaining to Arconic’s
trade secret/confidential information claims. If this ruling is not honored, there is a
risk of sanctions and cessation of the deposition.
(ECF No. 465). Arconic filed its objections in an exercise of caution to avoid the possibility of
sanctions for exceeding the scope of deposition questioning. Novelis did not file objections and
now urges affirmance of special master R&R #31. (ECF No. 475). Arconic filed a reply brief
and its objections are ripe for disposition.
There is no real dispute. Arconic and Novelis agree that pursuant to the case
management order (“CMO”) (ECF No. 321, adopting ECF No. 295), written discovery was
limited to Novelis’ new Antitrust Counterclaims, because the deadline for document and written
discovery for Novelis’ pre-existing counterclaims had passed. (ECF No. 295 at 4 n.1). The
parties also agree that under the CMO, depositions are pemitted to address all Novelis
counterclaims. (ECF No. 295 at 6-8). Novelis explains that it asked Arconic witnesses about all
Novelis counterclaims and it expects Arconic to do the same.
The only restriction (i.e., “targeting”) on deposition questioning in the CMO is that the
parties cannot ask questions about trade secret claims. Depositions on trade secret claims are
suspended because summary judgment motions on those claims are under consideration by the
special master. (ECF No. 295 at 7). Arconic represents that it “does not intend to make any
improper attempt at questioning Mr. Boney on issues pertaining to Arconic’s trade secret/
confidential information claims.” (ECF No.473 at 7; 476-1 at 4). Novelis points out that Boney
was already deposed (albeit as a corporate witness) on those topics. (ECF No. 475 at 2 n.2).
The last three sentences of special master R&R #31 are in accord with the parties’
agreements. Arconic may conduct deposition questioning within the meaning of the CMO (i.e.,
involving all Novelis counterclaims), but cannot question Boney about the trade secret and
confidential information claims. If the parties comply with these guidelines, they will not face
sanctions. On the other hand, the court has a continuing duty to consider sanctions if a party fails
to abide by the CMO. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.
Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing, Arconic’s Objections to R&R # 31 (ECF No. 473) will
be DENIED. R&R # 31 will be adopted as the opinion of the court as supplemented herein.
An appropriate order follows.
/s/ Joy Flowers Conti
Joy Flowers Conti
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: December 17, 2019
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ARCONIC INC.,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-1434
JUDGE JOY FLOWERS CONTI
)
)
)
v.
NOVELIS INC. and NOVELIS CORP,
Defendants.
)
)
)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of December, 2019, in accordance with the foregoing opinion,
Arconic’s Objections to R&R # 31 (ECF No. 473) are DENIED. R&R # 31, as supplemented by
the foregoing opinion, is adopted as the opinion of the court.
/s/ Joy Flowers Conti
Joy Flowers Conti
Senior United States District Judge
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?