T-Mobile USA Inc v. Huawei Device USA Inc et al

Filing 324

ORDER denying defendants' #221 Motion to strike portions of an expert report ; denying defendants' #223 Sealed Motion by Judge Richard A Jones.(RS) Modified on 1/17/2017/cc OptoFidelity, LLC (RS).

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

v.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER

HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

Case No. C14-1351-RAJ

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Huawei Device USA, Inc. and
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Supplemental Report of
Michael A.M. Davies. Dkt. ## 221, 223. Defendants seek to strike portions of an expert
report that, at the time of filing, Plaintiff T-Mobile USA, Inc. had not offered into the
record. The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion as improper. While Defendants
characterize their motion as a “proper discovery motion,” Dkt. # 240 at 3, they invoke no
provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Civil Rules as a basis for
seeking their requested relief. See Nautilus Grp., Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., No.
C02-2420RSM, 2006 WL 6863903, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 6, 2006) (denying motion to

23

strike as improper where “there was nothing to ‘strike’ when defendant filed its motion”).

24

To the extent Defendants wish to challenge the admissibility of evidence at trial, they can

25

do through the pre-trial motions in limine process. To the extent they wish to challenge

26

the use of the challenged materials at the summary judgment stage, the proper manner by

27
28

ORDER – 1

1
2

which to do so is governed by Local Civil Rule 7(g). See Nautilus Grp., Inc., 2006 WL
6863903, at *1. Defendants’ motion is DENIED. Dkt. ## 221, 223.

3
4

DATED this 17th day of January, 2017.

5
6

A

7
8

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 2