Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 438

ORDER denying 386 Motion to preclude portions of pltf's expert report. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham on 7/22/10. (ehs, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC vs. GOOGLE, INC., ET AL. § § § § § ORDER Pending before the court is the defendant Google, Inc.'s ("Google") motion to preclude portions of the plaintiff Bright Response's ("Bright Response") expert report (Dkt. No. 386). Google argues that expert report provided by Dr. V. Thomas Rhyne, Bright Response's technical expert, relies on infringement theories that were not adequately disclosed in the plaintiff's interrogatory responses. According to Google, Bright Response's interrogatory responses are "incoherent." Google received these responses on April 29, 2010 but did not file a motion to compel the plaintiff to provide clearer responses. Furthermore, Google deposed Dr. Rhyne after Bright Response served the expert report, and thus had the opportunity to question Dr. Rhyne about his infringement opinions. As such, the court concludes that Google has suffered no harm from Bright Response's alleged inadequate disclosure of its infringement theories. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). Therefore, the court DENIES Google's motion to preclude. SIGNED this 22nd day of July, 2010.

CASE NO. 2:07-CV-371-CE

___________________________________ CHARLES EVERINGHAM IV UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE