Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al v. NVIDIA Corporation et al
Filing
832
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 03/14/2016. (tjoh, )
IP. i
L
NM U20I6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
L
RICHMOND. VA
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.
3:14cv757
NVIDIA CORPORATION,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This
TO
matter
SUPPLEMENT
is
before
ITS
WITNESS
Corporation
(''NVIDIA")
list
its
to
add
Shoquist
Executive
MOTION
TO
Court
NVIDIA's
(Docket
seeks
to
Vice
For
on
LIST
again
C'Shoquist").
RENEWED
the
the
SUPPLEMENT
reasons
ITS
RENEWED
MOTION
807).
NVIDIA
its
witness
No.
supplement
President
of
Operations,
stated
below,
LIST
(Docket
WITNESS
Debora
NVIDIA's
No.
807)
will be denied.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 16,
denying
No.
NVIDIA's
602).
Motion
the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion
for
Partial
Summary
The
Opinion
discussed,
among
which
Samsung
Electronics
Co.,
ways
in
show
that
liable
2015,
NVIDIA
for
pre-suit
December
29,
Order
include
to
''controls"
2015,
TSMC,
damages
Samsung
NVIDIA's
moved
response
Ltd.
such
under
35
to
to
Judgment.
other
various
('"Samsung")
NVIDIA
U.S.C.
amend
(Docket
issues,
that
the
u
\ZJ
CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT
LTD.,
V.
fil
ยง
would
287(b).
Final
Interrogatory
might
be
On
Pretrial
No.
10,
a
document that Samsung argued tended to show ''control" under the
standards discussed in the December 16,
(Docket Nos.
610,
611).
The Court's order granting that motion
included a provision stating that,
to
introduce
evidence
Interrogatory No.
Docket No.
659).
10,
it
to
the
should move
for
such relief.
On January 16,
The
677),
Court
2016,
newly
admitted
(Order,
NVIDIA filed its original
Witness List with Ms.
Shoquist
to which Samsung objected.
denied
Memorandum Opinion,
opinion,
if Defendants felt the need
responsive
Motion to Supplement Defendants'
(Docket No.
2016 Memorandum Opinion.
NVIDIA's
Docket No.
motion.
7 35).
(Order,
Docket
No.
692;
As the Court noted in that
NVIDIA's concession that Shoquist would not testify to
anything that four already-designated witnesses were not already
slated
to
discuss
injustice"
Docket
Koch V.
No.
under
735,
Koch
surprise
ability
of
Fed.
4,
Inds.,
weighed against
or
meant
to
that
R.
6-7) .
Inc.,
that
NVIDIA
Civ.
P.
party
party
to
Id.
opposing
cure
the
F.2d 1202,
supplementation.
the
16(e).
Moreover,
2013
could
any
not
prove
(Memorandum
factors
2122
of
surprise;
Opinion,
enumerated
(10th Cir.
(considering
trial
''manifest
the
(3)
(1)
issue;
in
2000)
prejudice
(2)
disruption
the
to
the orderly and efficient trial of the case by inclusion of the
new issue;
order).
and
(4)
bad faith by the party seeking to modify the
In particular,
the Court found that:
(1)
Samsung
was
surprised
because:
(a)
Shoquist
was
never
designated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) as a knowledgeable
person; and
a
(b) when NVIDIA was called upon to designate
30(b)(6)
witness
to
testify
relationship between TSMC,
The
Court
found
depositions
that,
on other
about
Shoquist
having
was
taken
knowledgeable
the
not
26(a)
business
designated.
and
people,
30(b) (6)
''Samsung has
prepared its case, and granting this motion would require
Samsung
to
take
depositions
(Memorandum Opinion,
(2)
on
Docket No.
735,
might
reveal) ;
inhibit
of
trial."
4-5).
(a)
discovery
(such that Samsung would not be able to pursue
additional paths of discovery that
such
discovery.
and
(b)
inquiry
the
Shoquist's deposition
proximity
even
if
(Memorandum Opinion,
of
the
trial
Court
Docket No.
would
reopened
735,
5).
Supplementing with Shoquist would disrupt an orderly and
efficient
trial
because:
(a)
preparation
had been underway for some time,
the trial
735,
and
(b)
for
the
trial
it would disrupt
to require adjustment of trial preparations so
quickly before the trial
(4)
eve
The prejudice could not be cured because:
was closed
(3)
the
(Memorandum Opinion,
Docket No.
5).
NVIDIA
did
Docket No.
not
735,
act
6).
in
bad
faith.
(Memorandum
Opinion,
Because
NVIDIA
because
the
Court
735,
could
Koch
denied
not
factors
NVIDIA's
demonstrate
weighed
motion.
and
the
Opinion,
(Memorandum
injustice
supplementation,
against
No.
Docket
6-7).
For reasons not relevant here,
on
manifest
the
patents
relevant.
to
(E.g.,
which
the Court granted a mistrial
Shoquist's
Memorandum
testimony
Opinion,
Docket
trial on those patents will be held May 4,
the mistrial was declared,
would
No.
have
829).
2016.
been
The
new
Shortly after
NVIDIA filed this motion renewing its
request to supplement its witness list with Shoquist.
ANALYSIS
NVIDIA's
argument
components:
(1)
cumulative,
such
(4)
cured;
be
Shoquist's
that
manifest injustice;
easily
can
(3)
(2)
broken
testimony
inability
to
into
is
several
relevant
supplement
would
major
and
non-
constitute
there is no surprise and any surprise is
supplementation
will
NVIDIA has not acted in bad faith.
not
disrupt
However,
trial;
and
NVIDIA s t i l l has
not shown that denying its motion to supplement would result in
manifest
injustice,
and NVIDIA misunderstands
surprise
and cure
in the context of discovery.
A. Manifest injustice, relevance, and cumulativeness
NVIDIA
regarding
asserts
facts
that
critical
Shoquist
to
has
rebutting
personal
Samsung's
knowledge
claim
that
NVIDIA ''owns
or
controls" TSMC,
claim for pre-notice damages.
which
is
relevant
(Def.'s Mem.
in Supp.
Mtn. to Supp. Witness List, Docket No. 808, 1)
Although Shoquist appears
on that point,
amend
the
to have
to
some
Samsung's
of Renewed
(''Def.'s Mem.").
relevant
knowledge
NVIDIA cannot credibly claim that declining to
Pretrial
Order
would
constitute
manifest
injustice
because NVIDIA has admitted that all
the evidence that
Shoquist
has
four
already-
to
offer
is
to
be
designated witnesses.
7).
this
concession
by
with
Joseph
-
Greco
cumulative
NVIDIA
relationship
NVIDIA's
witnesses
with
of
in
Shoquist
and
are
the
TSMC.
Greco
will
and
and
cumulative.
735,
4,
6-
four
-
By
NVIDIA's
business
already-designated,
cover
Mem.
previous
the
will
cover
will
Greco
testimony
currently-designated
(Def.'s
the
NVIDIA's
Docket No.
Shoquist's
while
witnesses
statements
whether
Shoquist
one
that
Shoquist
TSMC,
of
NVIDIA attempted to backtrack from
stating
because
relationship
by
(Memorandum Opinion,
In briefing this motion,
non-cumulative
not
addressed
are
three
5).
allegedly
technical
But,
light
of
question
is
in
the
cumulative,
NVIDIA's
witness
NVIDIA's
briefing,
other
be
but
whether
already-designated
admission,
Shoquist's
business testimony overlaps with James Chen and John Hu, ^ rather
^ Chen and Hu are currently set to testify by deposition,
if at
all. NVIDIA attempts to argue that bringing Shoquist to testify
in person is preferable to the alternative of Chen and Hu
than
Greco.
neither
(Def.'s
James
Chen
Reply
nor
3)
John
(''If
need
Hu
Ms.
to
Shoquist
testify
testifies,
regarding
the
business relationship...") . Even in the current round of briefing,
NVIDIA
concedes
because Greco,
would cover.
that
Chen,
Hence,
Shoquist's
testimony
is
not
necessary,
and Hu will cover the same topics Shoquist
NVIDIA has not established that it is harmed
by denying the motion to supplement, much less that denying the
motion is a ''manifest injustice" under Fed.
B.
R.
Civ.
P.
16(e).
Koch Factors
Although NVIDIA cannot demonstrate that it would be harmed
by
denying
its
motion,
Samsung
has
established
that
Samsung
would be harmed by granting the motion under the Koch factors.
As to the first
Samsung cannot
be
designated in its
person
with
witness
Docket
position
surprised because,
disclosures
knowledge
under
No.
and second Koch factors,
Fed.
735,
during
of
R.
3-4),
its
Civ.
under
Fed.
and
or
R.
was
in
Shoquist
Civ.
of
30(b)(6)
Shoquist
depositions
although
defenses
P.
NVIDIA argues that
its
P.
26(a)
case
(Memorandum
mentioned
NVIDIA's
was
by
original
or
not
as
a
as
a
Opinion,
name
and
January,
testifying by deposition. (Def.'s Reply to Samsung's Opposition,
Docket No. 825, 3) . NVIDIA hangs i t hat on a previous case in
which this Court stated a preference for live testimony over
deposition testimony when "reasonably possible." (Pl.'s Reply 3)
(quoting Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Rambus, Inc., 386 F. Supp. 2d
708,
718
(E.D.
Va.
2005)).
For
the
reasons
stated
in
the
Koch
analysis, below, supplementing with Shoquist is not "reasonably
possible" at this point, such that Rambus does not control.
2015 motion to supplement.
4) .
NVIDIA argues,
curable
because
deposition.
the
moreover,
NVIDIA
that
will
any
make
Docket No.
resulting
Shoquist
735,
prejudice
available
is
for
a
(Def.'s Mem. 6-7).
NVIDIA's
in
(Memorandum Opinion,
argument
discovery
misunderstands
context.
Notice
the
in
a
nature
of
''surprise"
deposition
is
not
an
adequate substitute for disclosure in the proper form and at the
proper time,
as the Court discussed at length in this case with
respect
non-disclosures
to
(Memorandum Opinion,
the
fact
that
by
Dr.
Docket No.
Shoquist's
name
829,
Jeongdong
12-16).
arose
in
a
Choe
C'Choe").
In this situation,
deposition
does
not
ameliorate surprise for the same reasons that deposition notice
did not ameliorate surprise as to Choe:
came
up
during
opportunity
Shoquist.
either
depositions,
to
use
the
Samsung
because Shoquist's name
denied
its
discovery
entire
was
period
to
proper
examine
Samsung's awareness does not mean that Samsung was not
surprised
or
able
to
effect
a
cure.
Finding
otherwise
would run counter to the opinion on the Choe non-disclosure.
Moreover,
deposition
NVIDIA's
neither
effective cure.
disclosures
under Fed.
to make
alleviates
Shoquist
prejudice
nor
available
serves
as
for
a
fully
If NVIDIA had disclosed Shoquist properly in its
under
R.
offer
Civ.
Fed.
P.
R.
Civ.
30(b) (6),
do more than take a deposition:
P.
26 or as
a
designated witness
Samsung would have been able to
it could have used any discovery
tool
available
under
the
Federal
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure.
Because Shoquist was not so disclosed, Samsung did not engage in
the
sort of wide-ranging discovery to which Samsung would have
been
entitled
in
the
period
of
discovery
allowed
for
merit
discovery.^ Offering Shoquist for a deposition is a partial cure,
but not a complete cure.
NVIDIA
brought
this
motion
apparently
under
the
misapprehension that the proximity of trial was the only reason
that
the
Court
believed
that
it
surprise of adding Shoquist as a
trial
certainly
difficult
trial
than
for
it
a
is
exacerbated
trial
for
the
team to
a
trial
was
not
witness.
possible
a
team to
cure
the
Although proximity to
problem
take
to
(it
is
deposition
take
a
clearly
a
more
week before
deposition months
away from trial) ,
the original memorandum opinion made i t quite
^ NVIDIA argues,
in response,
that Samsung's complaints about
certain
avenues
of
discovery
being
cut
off
are
purely
hypothetical.
(Def.'s Reply, 4)
("That claim is premature and,
regardless,
Samsung
cannot
identify
a
single
possible
^additional
path
of
discovery'
(excepting
Ms.
Shoquist's
deposition)
that may result
from allowing Ms.
Shoquist to
testify."). In its opinion on Choe's nondisclosures, the Court
rejected a similar argument by Samsung that NVIDIA could only
hypothesize that Choe's undisclosed scans were probative of
NVIDIA's position. (Memorandum Opinion, Docket No. 829, 22 n.l4.
In both situations, i t is not the Court's place to shut the door
on possible lines of inquiry, so long as those lines of inquiry
are
reasonable,
and
reasonably
calculated
to
lead
to
the
discovery of admissible evidence. Indeed, NVIDIA's position is
undermined by the rule that information is discoverable if i t
appears
reasonably
calculated to
lead to
the
discovery of
admissible evidence.
Fed.
R.
Civ.
8
P.
26(b)(1).
clear that the fact that Shoquist was not disclosed in time for
general discovery was
the animating
(Memorandum
Docket
Opinion,
inability to take
entitled
during
the
the
No.
factor
735,
of
4,
that decision.
4-5).
sort of discovery to which
general
discovery
period
Samsung's
it would be
carries
just
as
much weight now as it did weeks from trial. Because Shoquist was
not properly disclosed, and because Samsung cannot take the type
of discovery necessary to cure the resulting surprise,
the Court
will deny NVIDIA's motion to supplement.
As to the third Koch factor,
Shoquist will not disrupt trial,
witness,
she
will
not
NVIDIA argues that designating
because,
introduce
a
new
although she is a new
''issue"
under
Koch.
(Def.'s Mem. 7).^ Shoquist is, however, a new witness, and a new
witness means
trial.
disruption
to
trial
preparation,
and thus
to
the
As the Court noted in its ruling on the original motion,
''[t]he
keystone
of
preparation
for
(Memorandum
Opinion,
NVIDIA's
motion,
deposition,
this
an
efficient
trial
is
preparation
trial
has
been
underway
Docket
No.
735,
5) .
would
be
Samsung
review the deposition,
If
required
for
the
to
some
Court
and
time."
granted
conduct
the
and prepare cross-examination
^ This persistent acknowledgement that Shoquist will not add any
testimony
not
available
from
already-designated
witnesses,
again,
tends to show that NVIDIA will not suffer "manifest
injustice" by the Court's refusal to supplement.
for
Shoquist,
when
Samsung
has
already
conducted
such
preparations for Greco, Chen, and Hu.^ This is, admittedly, not
an enormous or trial-derailing type of disruption,
facts
disruption
calculus.
It
plays
does,
a
small
however,
role
in
marginally
and on these
the
Court's
indicate
that
Koch
NVIDIA
should not be allowed to supplement.
As to the fourth factor,
there is no evidence in the record
that NVIDIA acted in bad faith.
(Def.'s Mem.
7).^ This tends to
support supplementation.
On the whole,
that
disclosure
of
however,
the Koch factors
Shoquist was
a
surprise
tend to demonstrate
and that,
having closed,
Samsung cannot cure that surprise.
NVIDIA's
of
lack
bad
faith,
and
supports
the
discovery
This outweighs
conclusion
that
NVIDIA should not be permitted to supplement its witness list.
'' Samsung argues that the fact that Shoquist's testimony would be
''cumulative
and
inefficient"
tends
to
demonstrate
disruptiveness. (Pl.'s 0pp. 7). On this record, the Court does
not
consider the
inefficiency to
rise
to
the
level
of a
''disruption," although it might be otherwise objectionable under
Fed.
R.
Ev.
403.
^ Samsung alleges
that NVIDIA is unsatisfied with its
current
crop of witnesses
and
is
opportunistically using
Samsung's
introduction of Interrogatory No. 10 to "replace these other
witnesses with Ms. Shoquist, a high level executive that has not
yet been tarnished by adverse deposition testimony." (Pl.'s 0pp.
8) . That may be so,
but the record does not permit such a
finding.
10
CONCLUSION
Many of the
also
salient
prejudice,
facts
to
(1)
the
Rule
renewed
26
30(b)(6);
resources
disclosed
(2)
cure,
conducting
witnesses
witnesses
as
NVIDIA
and
NVIDIA's
paths
of
to
that
keystone
the
to
surprise
an
of
on the topic
other
witnesses
to
Samsung has already invested time
against
NVIDIA's
preparing
for
trial
witnesses
orderly
witness
four
and
knowledgeable
discovery
discovery
disruption
a
has
on the
because discovery is closed,
pursue
As
or designated as
testify on this topic; and (3)
and
motion.
Shoquist was never disclosed as a
person under Rule
under
enumerated in the original opinion are
topic
than
efficient
and
of
with
those
control.
As
to
Samsung would not be able to
other
and
a
properly
a
deposition.
trial,
efficiency
is
the
As
Court
preparation,
to
noted
and
preparation has been underway for a considerable amount of time,
such that any change now could throw off the usefulness of those
earlier
preparations.
aggravated by
the
Although
proximity
NVIDIA's original motion,
NVIDIA's motion
In
corporate
sum,
of
all
trial
of
when
these
the
factors
Court
were
considered
they still require that the Court deny
now.
Shoquist's
witnesses,
such
testimony
is
that
is
there
from not permitting her designation,
11
cumulative
no
of
manifest
and Shoquist's
other
injustice
designation
would
constitute
reasons,
an
incurable
surprise
to
Samsung.
For
NVIDIA's RENEWED MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT ITS WITNESS LIST
(Docket No. 807) will be denied.
/s/
Robert E.
Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Richmond,
Date:
these
Virginia
March
/t-f , 2016
12
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?