`
`Case 1:15-cv-00211-LGS-SDA Document 749 Filed 09/22/20 Page 1 of 7Case 1:15-cv-00211-LGS-SDA Document 1018 Filed 06/23/21 Page 1 of 7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00211-LGS-SDA Document 749 Filed 09/22/20 Page 2 of 7Case 1:15-cv-00211-LGS-SDA Document 1018 Filed 06/23/21 Page 2 of 7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00211-LGS-SDA Document 749 Filed 09/22/20 Page 3 of 7Case 1:15-cv-00211-LGS-SDA Document 1018 Filed 06/23/21 Page 3 of 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00211-LGS-SDA Document 1018 Filed 06/23/21 Page 4 of 7
`Case 1:15-cv-00211-LGS-SDA Document 749 Filed 09/22/20 Page 4 of 7
`CaxetibatMniiGSSDA Damunveantticies FiGBZ320 Peay“ait77
`
`that the law of the case doctrine is inapplicable here.
`
`(ECF 608 at 8-9.) The “law ofthe case”
`
`doctrine proposes that when the court decides upon a rule of law that decision should continue to
`
`govern the sameissues in later stages of the case. Fortunoffv. Triad Land Assocs., 906 F. Supp.
`
`107, 113 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). Despite this doctrine, a court still has the power to reconsider its own
`
`decision prior to a final judgment.
`
`/d. (citing DiLaura v. Power Auth., 982 F.2d 73, 76 (2d
`
`Cir.1992)). However, the law of the case doctrine is inappropriate and the Court is justified in
`
`reconsidering its own earlier decisions in a case where: (1) there is a changein controlling law,(2)
`
`new evidenceis presented, or (3) there is a need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest
`
`injustice. Bonnie & Co. Fashions, Inc. v. Bankers Trust Co., 955 F. Supp. 203, 209 (S.D.N.Y.
`
`1997) (concluding law of case doctrine did not prevent reconsideration of summary judgment
`
`motion). Rulings made at the pretrial stage should be subject to reconsideration as a case
`eee
`
`progresses toward trial, and a trial judge
`
`“‘should be particularly sensitive to the advantages of
`
`correcting mistakes’” before trial.
`
`/d. (citation omitted). Here, Syntel submits the Court should
`
`reconsiderits earlier ruling that Sanders has adequate personal knowledgeto testify regarding the
`
`|| tool because it is contrary to the controlling law cited herein. The Court did not cite to any
`
`authority when making its previous ruling, and to affirm its prior ruling would be contrary to
`eee
`
`controlling authority and would invite
`
`“‘taint that may infect all further trial proceedings [and]
`
`provoke an avoidable appeal.’” /d. (citation omitted). Moreover, the law of the case is not a
`
`“commandmentetched in stone”, rather pretrial rulings madebythe district judge are “subject to
`
`modification at any time prior to final judgment”. Childress v. Taylor, 798 F. Supp. 981, 993-94
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 1992) (finding district court was not bound to follow prior order granting copyright
`
`holder’s motion for partial summary judgment on question ofliability in subsequent proceeding).
`
`Given that the Second Circuit has found executive level employees do not have personal
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00211-LGS-SDA Document 1018 Filed 06/23/21 Page 5 of 7
`Case 1:15-cv-00211-LGS-SDA Document 749 Filed 09/22/20 Page 5 of 7
`CaxetibatMniiGsSSDA Damnation FieGeZ320 PeaypeSalf77
`
`knowledgeto testify regarding ground level company processes and/or products, Syntel submits
`
`that the Court should reconsiderits prior ruling and preclude Sanders from testifying regarding the
`
`a. Folio Impressions, Inc. v. Byer Cal., 937 F.2d. 759, 763-64 (2d Cir. 1991).
`
`Sanders’ knowledge of whether the || tool is subsumed in Facets 5.10 is entirely second
`
`hand, based on what people told him during his deposition preparation, and not something he
`
`learned in connection with his job duties. Thus,histrial testimony would be inadmissible because
`
`it is not based on personal knowledge as required under Fed. R. Evid. 602 and instead is
`
`impermissible hearsay. See 3 Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 602.02; Folio Impressions, 937
`
`F.2d. at 763-64; Brown v. Reinauer Transp. Cos., L.P., No. 16-cv-3998 (LDH) (PK), 2018 WL
`
`9986677, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2018) (concluding plaintiff lacked personal knowledge when
`
`he did not “know,”“see,” or “feel” the relevant factual issue). Sanders never reviewed the deposit
`
`copy of Facets 5.10, so he had no personal knowledge of what was containedtherein.
`
`The test for whether a witness has personal knowledge is whether a reasonabletrier of fact
`
`could believe the witness had personal knowledge. Folio Impressions, 937 F.2d. at 763-64
`
`(finding executive in charge of sales for the Bruckert Design Studio had personal knowledge to
`
`testify that the design pattern defendant later copied originated from a public domain document in
`
`her studio’s possession whereshe had significant responsibilities and control at the studio). The
`
`Second Circuit found the Bruckert executive had personal knowledgeofthe origin oftextile design
`
`because: (i) she directly supervised the textile pattern designers,(ii) her primary responsibility was
`
`selling the designs to clients, and (iii) as the owner and head designer’s daughter, she was very
`
`familiar with the business.” J/d.; Folio Impressions, Inc. v. Byer Cal., 752 F. Supp. 583, 586-87
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 1990). Her involvementwith the design processis dramatically different from Sander’s
`
`familiarity with the 7. Unlike the Bruckert executive, Sanders’ job responsibilities do not cause
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00211-LGS-SDA Document 749 Filed 09/22/20 Page 6 of 7Case 1:15-cv-00211-LGS-SDA Document 1018 Filed 06/23/21 Page 6 of 7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-00211-LGS-SDA Document 749 Filed 09/22/20 Page 7 of 7Case 1:15-cv-00211-LGS-SDA Document 1018 Filed 06/23/21 Page 7 of 7
`
`