Fast Memory Erase LLC v. Spansion Inc et al

Filing 303

Memorandum Order The court denies defendants' motion to compel discovery [Doc. #181]. Because defendants may not discover the SI reports and underlying data, they are not entitled to depose the SI personnel involved in the testing process. The court therefore grants plaintiffs' motion for protective order [Doc. #264] and denies defendants' request [Doc. #245] and revised request [Doc. #259] for letters rogatory. See Order (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan on 12/16/2009) (svc)

IN THE LINITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT DISTRICTOF TEXAS NORTHERN D A L L A S DIVISION F A S TMEMORYERASE, LLC
Plaintiff,

VS. S P A N S I O NINC.,ET AL. , Defendants.

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

N O . 3-08-CV-0977-M

M E M O R A N D U M ORDER Intel Corporation, Numonyx B.V., and Numonyx, Inc. have I n this patentcase,Defendants of f i l e d a joint motion to compel discovery of certain reports and documentsin the possession Insights,Inc. ("SI"), a Canadian p l a i n t i f f and its non-testiffing consultingexpert, Semiconductor reportspreparedby SI analyzingthe NOR flash c o m p a n y . At issueare three reverse'engineering togetherwith the underlyingdataand any of m e m o r y chips accused infringing the patents-in-suit, communications related to the reports. Plaintiff and SI contend that the requestedmaterials are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, and Rule counterthat the materialsarenot privilegedand,evenif they are,plaintiff 2 6 ( b X 4 X B ) . Defendants portionsof the SI reportsin its preliminary h a s waived any suchprotectionby relying on selected ask motions,defendants the court and attheMarkmanhearing.In separate i n f r i n g e m e n tcontentions locatedoutsidethe United States,' t o issuelettersrogatoryto obtain discoveryfrom SI employees
I Under Rule 28(b), the depositionof a witnesslocatedoutsidethe United States may be taken undera "letter in to the appropriate authorities the foreigncountry, SeeFpo. R. Crv. P.28(b); Punyee o f request"from the issuingcourt e x rel. Doe #l v. Bredimus,No, 3-04-CV-0893-G,2004WL2511144 at*7 n.l4 (N.D. Tex. Nov, 5, 2004),quotingIntel n. lnc.,542U.S.241,248 n.l, 124S.Ct.2466,2473 l, 159L.Ed.2d355 (2004) C o r p o r a t i o n Advanced v. Miuo Devices, ( " [ A ] letter rogatory is the requestby a domesticcourt to a foreign court to take evidencefrom a certainwitness.").

-l-

with thosedepositions.The motions havebeen and plaintiff seeksa protectiveorderin connection b r i e f e d by the partiesand are ripe for determination. The court initially observesthat none of the discovery materialsat issueareprotectedby the Rule26(b)(4XB),adoptedinl9T0,repudiates attorney-clientprivilegeortheworkproductdoctrine. t h e notion that materials preparedby a non-testi$ing expert are privileged or constitute work p r o d u c t . Fpo. R. Ctv. P. 26(b)(4), Adv. Comm. Note (1970); see also In re PolyMedica Corp. ("Theprotectionaffordednon-testiffingexperts Litig,,235F.R.D.28,30 (D. Mass.2006) Securities privilege."); Pearl Brewing Co. i s distinct from the work-productdoctrineand the attorney-client the v . JosephSchlitzBrewing Co., 415F.Supp.1122,| 137(S.D. Tex. 1976)(same).Instead, rule p r o v i d e s ,in pertinentpart, that: [ A ] party may not, by intenogatoriesor deposition,discover facts k n o w n or opinions held by an expert who has been retained or s p e c i a l l yemployedby anotherparty in anticipationof litigation or to preparefor trial and who is not expectedto be called as a witness at t r i a l . But aparty may do so onlY:
,f rf :f {.

( i i ) on showing exceptional circumstancesunder which it is i m p r a c t i c a b l efor the party to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means. F p n . R. Crv. P. 26(bX4XB). A party seekingdisclosureunder Rule 26(b)(4XB) carriesa heavy b u r d e n . SeeLott v. DutchmenMfg., /rc., No. 9:05-CY-233,2006WL2708432at* I (E.D. Tex. S e p t . 19, 2006),citing Hoover v. U.S.Dept. of the Interior,6ll F.2d 1132, ll42 n.l3 (5th Cir. discoverymust show that: (l) a 1 9 8 0 ) . To establish"exceptionalcircumstanses," party requesting by by t h e object or condition observed the non-testifuingexpert is no longer observable an expert o f the parfy seekingdiscovery or (2) although it is possibleto replicate expert discovery on a

-2-

Ltd., contested issue,the cost of doing so is judicially prohibitive. SeeCooperv. Meridian Yachts, N o . 06-61630-CIV,2008 WL 2229552at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 28, 2008) (collectingcases). If preparedby a non-testiffing expertare disclosedto and considered a by m a t e r i a l sand documents t e s t i f y i n g expert, such materialsand documentslose their protectedstatus. See,e.g. Herman v. v. F.R.D. M a r i n e Midland Bank,207F.R.D.26,30-32(W.D. N.Y. 2002);Johnson Gmeinder,191 6 3 8 , 647 (D. Kan. 2000); Hartfurd Fire Ins, Ca. v, Pure Air on the Lake Ltd. Partnership,154 Ind. 1993). F . R . D .202,208CN.D. Here, defendantscontend that "exceptional circumstances"exist for discovery of the SI involved in testingthe of r e p o r t sand underlyingdata,as well as the depositions SI representatives portions of the SI reportsin its preliminary a c c u s e ddevices,because: (l) plaintiff used selected the cannotassess and asevidenceattheMarkrnanhearing;(2) defendants i n f r i n g e m e n tcontentions to r e l i a b i l i t y of plaintiff s evidencewithout access the raw test data;and (3) the depositionsof SI the and to are p e r s o n n einvolved in the testingprocess necessary understand scrutinize reportsrelied l o n by plaintiff. (SeeDef. MPO Resp,at 6, 8-9). All thesejustifications implicate the need to adequatelypreparefor cross-examinationat trial. However, in the caseof a non-testiSing expert, SeePolymedica,235F.R.D. t h e r e is no needto obtain discoveryfor effectivecross-examination. a t 33; In re Shell Oil Refinery,132 F.R.D. 437,440(E.D. La. 1990),clari/ied by 134 F.R.D. 148 a ( E . D . La. 1990). If and when plaintiff designates testifuingexpertwho hasrelied on the SI reports will be entitled to obtain defendants a n d underlyingdata in forming opinionson disputedissues,2 by to disclosed and considered the testiffing d i s c o v e r yof any documents data,or communications ,

2 The partiesare currently negotiatingan extensionof the deadlinefor designating expertwitnesses.As of any testi$ing expertswho have relied on the SI reportsor underlyingdata. t o d a y , plaintiff has not designated

-3-

expert. Gmeinder,l9l F.R.D.at 647;seealsoRegional Airport Authorityof Louisvillev. LFG, (6thCir.2006) (recognizing "overwhelming hold that majority" ofcourts L L C , 4 6 0 F . 3 d 6 9,716-17 7 given to testifuing disclosure all documents of that Rule 26 creates bright-linerule mandating experts).
Defendants further argue that plaintiff has waived the protections of Rule 26(b)(a)(B) bV v o l u n t a r i l y disclosing and relying on selectedportions of the SI reports in its preliminary i n f r i n g e m e n tcontentionsand as evidenceat the Markrnan hearing. (SeeDef. MPO Resp.at 5-7). E v e n if the doctrine of waiver appliesto Rule 26(bX4XB),3the facts of this casedo not supporta plaintiff attached nine w a i v e r argument. As an exhibit to its preliminaryinfringementcontentions, pagesof computer generatedcharts,drawings, and graphsobtainedfrom the SI reportsto illustrate h o w the accused devicesinfringe the patents-in-suit.(SeeDef. MPO Resp.App, at 007-015;Def. aids M o t . to Comp. App. at 19-146). The samematerialswere usedby plaintiff as demonstrative plaintiff a t t h eMarkmanhearing. (SeePlf. MPO Reply Br. at 3). Contraryto defendants'assertions, to of data,andconclusions" SI as evidence supportits infringement i s not relying on the "analyses, claim construction.The purposeofpreliminary infringementcontentions andproposed contentions party'sspecifictheories ofinfringement. SeeFennerInvestments, i s to providenoticeofthe accusing no lnc.,236 F.R.D.309,310 (E.D. Tex. 2006). A contention, matterhow L t d . v. JuniperNetworks, d e t a i l e d , is not evidence. Similarly, the charts, drawings, and graphs used by plaintiff as demonstrativeaids at the Markman hearing are not evidenceand have no probative value. Rather,
r Courts disagreeas to whetherthe protectionsof Rule 26(bX4XB) are subjectto waiver. CompareLuduig v . Pilkington North America,/rc., No. 03-C-1086,2003WL22242224 at *3 (N.D. Ill. Sept.29,2003) (Rule26(bXaXB) p r o t e c t i o nnot subjectto waiver) with Atari Corp. v. Segaof America, 16l F.R.D. 417,418-20(N.D. CaL 1994)(waiver negotiations). Qf, o c c u r r e dwhere parfy voluntarily provided expert materialsto opposingcounselduring settlement P o l y m e d i c a , 2 3 5 F.R.D. at 32 (noting division in case law on the waiver issue);Bank BrusselsLqmbert v, Chase M a n h a t t a nBank,N.A., 175 F.R.D.34, 45 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)(same).

-4-

such demonstrativeaids assist the trier of fact in evaluatingthe evidence. See United Statesv. see T a y l o r , 2 l 0 F.3d311,315(5thCir.2000); also2 McCormickon Evidence 5214 (6thed.2006) probativevalue for determiningthe substantive ( " [ D ] e m o n s t r a t i v eaids do not have independenl i s s u e sin the case."). Unless the district court relies on the SI materialsin construing the patent c l a i m s , which is highly unlikely sincethe materialsare neither intrinsic evidencenor the type of there is no basisfor finding in e x t r i n s i c evidenceto be considered the claim constructionanalysis, t h a t plaintiff has waived the protectionsof Rule 26(b)(a)(B). In sum, defendantshave failed to establish"exceptionalcircumstanses"for discovery of the SI reports and underlying data. Nor has plaintiff waived the protections afforded by Rule and drawingsfrom the SI reportsto its preliminary charts,graphs, 2 6 ( b X 4 X B ) by attachingselected aidsat theMarkmanhearrng. andby usingthe materialsasdemonstrative i n f r i n g e m e n tcontentions to A c c o r d i n g l y , the court deniesdefendants'motion compel discovery[Doc. #l8l]. Because

the may not discoverthe SI reportsand underlyingdata,they are not entitledto depose defendants S I personnelinvolved in the testing process. The court thereforegrants plaintiffs' motion for revised request request defendants' denies protective order[Doc. #2641and [Doc. [Doc. #2451and # 2 5 9 1for lettersrogatory.{

S OORDERED. 16.2009. D A T E D : December

L.\N JI-]DCJB S l - A ] ' E S N{AGISTR.ATE

fDoc. #2281thereply appendixsubmiftedby defendants the i n connectionwith their motion to compel, Even if the court considers evidencein the reply appendix,it would have n o effect on the dispositionof the discoverymotion.

4 The court also deniesas moot SI's motion to strike

-5-