Cypress Insurance Company v. SK Hynix America, Inc.

Filing 274

OMNIBUS ORDER re Plaintiff's Exhibit Nos. 383 and 384, Plaintiff's motions for judgment as a matter of law, and Defendant's motion for judgment of a matter of law. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (TH)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, as
subrogee of Microsoft Corporation,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

v.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00467-RAJ
OMNIBUS ORDER

SK HYNIX AMERICA INC.,
Defendant.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

This order addresses the admission of Plaintiff’s Exhibit Nos. 383 and 384,
Plaintiff’s motions for judgment as a matter of law, and Defendant’s motion for judgment
of a matter of law.
A.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 383 is ADMITTED by stipulation of the parties. The Court
will also ADMIT Plaintiff’s Exhibit 384 (RFA Nos. 43-50) subject to redactions. The
Court requires Plaintiff to redact the objections to Request for Admission Nos. 43-50, so
that each response begins with: “SKHA states as follows ….”
B.

28

Plaintiff’s Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law

Plaintiff’s moved for judgment as a matter of law on Day 9 of trial. Dkt. # 273. The
Court rules as follows:
i.

26
27

Plaintiff’s Exhibit Nos. 383 and 384

Breach of the Buffer Inventory

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Disputed facts preclude finding that there is no
ORDER – 1

1

legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for Hynix on the issue of

2

damages.
ii.

3

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Disputed facts preclude finding that there is no

4
5

legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for Hynix on this issue.
iii.

6

Impracticability Affirmative Defense

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Disputed facts preclude finding that there is no

7
8

Voluntary Payor Affirmative Defense

legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for Hynix on this issue.
iv.

9

Pre-Incident Conduct

10

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Defendant, however, is precluded from referencing

11

comparative fault or pre-incident conduct in closing arguments as a basis for reducing

12

damages for breach of contract.
v.

13

Subsequent Delivery of DRAM chips

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Disputed facts preclude finding that there is no

14
15

legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for Hynix on that issue as

16

it pertains to delivery under the Ninth Amendment.
vi.

17

Breach of the Capacity Commitment (Table 3) of the Ninth
Amendment

18
19

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Disputed facts preclude finding that there is no

20

legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for Hynix on the issue of

21

commercial reasonableness.
vii.

22

Breach of Ninth Amendment Regarding Purchase Orders

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Disputed facts preclude finding that there is no

23
24

legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for Hynix on this issue.

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

ORDER – 2

1

C.

2

Plaintiff’s moved for judgment as a matter of law on Day 9 of trial. Dkt. # 273. The

3

Court rules as follows:
i.

4
5
6

Defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law

Breach of Pricing Table of Ninth Amendment

Defendant’s motion is DENIED. Disputed facts preclude finding that there is no
legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for Cypress on this issue.

7
8

DATED this 21st day of March, 2019.

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