Cypress Insurance Company v. SK Hynix America, Inc.

Filing 226

ORDER ON THE PARTIES' MOTIONS IN LIMINE TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the parties' motions (Dkt. Nos. 184 , 187 ). Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (TH)

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

13
14
15

CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, as
subrogee of Microsoft Corporation,

16
17
18

Case No. 2:17-CV-00467-RAJ

Plaintiff,

ORDER ON THE PARTIES’
MOTIONS IN LIMINE TAKEN
UNDER ADVISEMENT

v.
SK HYNIX AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.

19
20

I.

INTRODUCTION

21
This matter comes before the Court after supplemental briefing and argument on the
22
parties’ motions in limine. Dkt. ## 184, 187, 205, 207. The Court requested additional
23
briefing on certain motions taken under advisement. See Dkt. # 199. For the reasons
24
below, the Court makes the following rulings:
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 1

i.

1

Cypress’ Motion In Limine No. 7: To Bar References to
Microsoft’s Pre-Incident Conduct

2
3

The Court DENIES Cypress’ motion without prejudice. The Court finds the

4

evidence relevant to the extent it informed Hynix’s subsequent actions and the

5

reasonableness thereof, and finds it may also be relevant to Hynix’s voluntary payor

6

defense. However, before offering this evidence, Hynix must provide a contemporaneous

7

limiting instruction explaining the purpose of the evidence and its exclusion from the jury’s

8

consideration in its determination of damages.

9

proposed language for the limiting instruction by February 28, 2019 at 4:00pm. Any

10

Hynix must provide the Court with

objections to the proposed limiting instruction are due by March 1, 2019 at 4:00pm.
ii.

11

Cypress’ Motion In Limine No. 12: To Bar References to
Contracts Awarded to Hynix in 2014 or Beyond

12
13

The Court GRANTS Cypress’ motion. The fact that Microsoft continued to work

14

with Microsoft is not in and of itself evidence that Hynix’s conduct was commercially

15

reasonable. Other factors, such as product pricing or the availability of other suppliers,

16

could have been at issue. In addition, the proposed evidence risks confusing the issues,

17

misleading the jury, and wasting time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 403.
iii.

18

Cypress’ Motion In Limine No. 16: To Bar Reference that Hynix
Received Any Service Awards From Microsoft

19
20

The Court GRANTS Cypress’ motion. As before, the fact that Microsoft issued a

21

service award to Hynix is not in and of itself evidence that Hynix’s conduct under the Ninth

22

Amendment was commercially reasonable. Other factors such as supplier relations could

23

have been at issue. As indicated above, the proposed evidence risks confusing the issues,

24

misleading the jury, and wasting time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 403.
iv.

25

Role as a “Launching Partner” or “Sole Supplier” of Microsoft

26
27
28

Hynix’s Motion In Limine No. 8: To Bar Evidence of Hynix’s

The Court DENIES Hynix’s motion. The Court will permit the parties to present
ORDER – 2

1

their disputed evidence regarding Hynix’s role for the Xbox One launch given its relevance

2

to the “commercially reasonable efforts” inquiry.
V. CONCLUSION

3
4
5

For the reasons stated above and in its February 14, 2019 order (Dkt. # 199), the
Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the parties’ motions. Dkt. ## 184, 187.

6
7

DATED this 27th day of February, 2019.

8

10

A

11

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

9

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

ORDER – 3