Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. NVIDIA Corporation, No. 3:2014cv00757 - Document 832 (E.D. Va. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 03/14/2016. (tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. NVIDIA Corporation Doc. 832 IP. i L NM U20I6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., L fil u \ZJ CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND. VA LTD., Plaintiff, V. 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 SUPPLEMENT reasons ITS MOTION 807). NVIDIA its witness No. supplement President the RENEWED 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 35 to to other Ltd. such under Judgment. issues, various ('"Samsung") that NVIDIA U.S.C. amend (Docket the ยง would 287(b). Final Interrogatory might be On Pretrial No. 10, a Dockets.Justia.com 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
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
