`IP. i
`L
`L fil
`NM U20I6
`u\ZJ
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Richmond Division
`
`CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`RICHMOND. VA
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`Civil Action No. 3:14cv757
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION,
`Defendant.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION
`
`This matter
`
`is before the Court on NVIDIA's RENEWED MOTION
`
`TO
`
`SUPPLEMENT
`
`ITS WITNESS
`
`LIST
`
`(Docket
`
`No.
`
`807).
`
`NVIDIA
`
`Corporation
`
`(''NVIDIA")
`
`again seeks
`
`to supplement
`
`its witness
`
`list
`
`to add its Executive Vice President of Operations, Debora
`
`Shoquist C'Shoquist").
`
`For
`
`the reasons
`
`stated below, NVIDIA's
`
`RENEWED MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT ITS WITNESS LIST (Docket No.
`
`807)
`
`will be denied.
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`On December 16, 2015,
`
`the Court
`
`issued a Memorandum Opinion
`
`denying NVIDIA's Motion for Partial Summary
`
`Judgment.
`
`(Docket
`
`No.
`
`602). The Opinion discussed,
`
`among other
`
`issues, various
`
`ways
`
`in which Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`('"Samsung") might
`
`show that NVIDIA ''controls"
`
`TSMC,
`
`such that NVIDIA would be
`
`liable
`
`for pre-suit
`
`damages
`
`under
`
`35 U.S.C.
`
`§
`
`287(b).
`
`On
`
`December 29,
`
`2015,
`
`Samsung moved
`
`to amend the Final Pretrial
`
`Order
`
`to include NVIDIA's
`
`response to Interrogatory No.
`
`10,
`
`a
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 832 Filed 03/14/16 Page 2 of 12 PageID# 42980
`
`document
`
`that Samsung argued tended to show ''control" under
`
`the
`
`standards discussed in the December 16, 2016 Memorandum Opinion.
`
`(Docket Nos.
`
`610, 611). The Court's order granting that motion
`
`included a provision stating that,
`
`if Defendants felt
`
`the need
`
`to
`
`introduce
`
`evidence
`
`responsive
`
`to
`
`the
`
`newly
`
`admitted
`
`Interrogatory No.
`
`10,
`
`it
`
`should move
`
`for
`
`such relief.
`
`(Order,
`
`Docket No. 659). On January 16, 2016, NVIDIA filed its original
`
`Motion to Supplement Defendants' Witness List with Ms. Shoquist
`
`(Docket No. 677),
`
`to which Samsung objected.
`
`The Court denied NVIDIA's motion.
`
`(Order, Docket No.
`
`692;
`
`Memorandum Opinion, Docket No.
`
`7 35). As
`
`the Court noted in that
`
`opinion, NVIDIA's concession that Shoquist would not
`
`testify to
`
`anything that
`
`four already-designated witnesses were not already
`
`slated to discuss meant
`
`that NVIDIA could not prove ''manifest
`
`injustice" under Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 16(e).
`
`(Memorandum Opinion,
`
`Docket No.
`
`735,
`
`4,
`
`6-7) . Moreover,
`
`the factors
`
`enumerated in
`
`Koch V. Koch Inds.,
`
`Inc., 2013 F.2d 1202, 2122
`
`(10th Cir. 2000)
`
`weighed against
`
`supplementation.
`
`Id.
`
`(considering (1) prejudice
`
`or surprise to the party opposing trial of
`
`the issue;
`
`(2)
`
`the
`
`ability of
`
`that party to cure any surprise;
`
`(3) disruption to
`
`the orderly and efficient trial of the case by inclusion of the
`
`new issue; and (4) bad faith by the party seeking to modify the
`
`order).
`
`In particular,
`
`the Court
`
`found that:
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 832 Filed 03/14/16 Page 3 of 12 PageID# 42981
`
`(1)
`
`Samsung was
`
`surprised because:
`
`(a) Shoquist was never
`
`designated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) as a knowledgeable
`
`person; and (b) when NVIDIA was called upon to designate
`
`a
`
`30(b)(6) witness
`
`to
`
`testify
`
`about
`
`the
`
`business
`
`relationship between TSMC, Shoquist was not designated.
`
`The Court
`
`found that,
`
`having taken 26(a)
`
`and 30(b) (6)
`
`depositions on other knowledgeable people,
`
`''Samsung has
`
`prepared its case, and granting this motion would require
`
`Samsung
`
`to
`
`take
`
`depositions
`
`on
`
`the
`
`eve
`
`of
`
`trial."
`
`(Memorandum Opinion, Docket No. 735, 4-5).
`
`(2)
`
`The prejudice could not be cured because:
`
`(a) discovery
`
`was closed (such that Samsung would not be able to pursue
`
`additional paths of discovery that Shoquist's deposition
`
`might
`
`reveal) ;
`
`and
`
`(b)
`
`the proximity of
`
`trial would
`
`inhibit
`
`such
`
`inquiry
`
`even
`
`if
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`reopened
`
`discovery.
`
`(Memorandum Opinion, Docket No. 735, 5).
`
`(3)
`
`Supplementing with Shoquist would disrupt an orderly and
`
`efficient
`
`trial because:
`
`(a) preparation for
`
`the trial
`
`had been underway for some time, and (b)
`
`it would disrupt
`
`the trial to require adjustment of trial preparations so
`
`quickly before the trial
`
`(Memorandum Opinion, Docket No.
`
`735, 5).
`
`(4)
`
`NVIDIA did not act
`
`in bad faith.
`
`(Memorandum Opinion,
`
`Docket No. 735, 6).
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 832 Filed 03/14/16 Page 4 of 12 PageID# 42982
`
`Because NVIDIA could not
`
`demonstrate manifest
`
`injustice and
`
`because
`
`the Koch
`
`factors weighed against
`
`supplementation,
`
`the
`
`Court denied NVIDIA's motion.
`
`(Memorandum Opinion, Docket No.
`
`735, 6-7).
`
`For reasons not relevant here,
`
`the Court granted a mistrial
`
`on the patents
`
`to which Shoquist's
`
`testimony would have been
`
`relevant.
`
`(E.g., Memorandum Opinion, Docket No.
`
`829). The
`
`new
`
`trial on those patents will be held May 4, 2016.
`
`Shortly after
`
`the mistrial was declared, NVIDIA filed this motion renewing its
`
`request
`
`to supplement its witness list with Shoquist.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`NVIDIA's
`
`argument
`
`can
`
`be
`
`broken
`
`into
`
`several major
`
`components:
`
`(1)
`
`Shoquist's
`
`testimony
`
`is
`
`relevant
`
`and
`
`non-
`
`cumulative,
`
`such that
`
`inability to supplement would constitute
`
`manifest
`
`injustice;
`
`(2)
`
`there is no surprise and any surprise is
`
`easily cured;
`
`(3)
`
`supplementation will not disrupt
`
`trial;
`
`and
`
`(4) NVIDIA has not acted in bad faith. However, NVIDIA still 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
`
`asserts
`
`that
`
`Shoquist
`
`has
`
`personal
`
`knowledge
`
`regarding
`
`facts
`
`critical
`
`to
`
`rebutting Samsung's
`
`claim that
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 832 Filed 03/14/16 Page 5 of 12 PageID# 42983
`
`NVIDIA ''owns or controls" TSMC, which is relevant
`
`to Samsung's
`
`claim for pre-notice damages.
`
`(Def.'s Mem.
`
`in Supp. of Renewed
`
`Mtn.
`
`to Supp. Witness List, Docket No. 808, 1)
`
`(''Def.'s Mem.").
`
`Although Shoquist appears
`
`to have
`
`some
`
`relevant knowledge
`
`on that point, NVIDIA cannot credibly claim that declining to
`
`amend
`
`the Pretrial Order would constitute manifest
`
`injustice
`
`because NVIDIA has admitted that all
`
`the evidence that Shoquist
`
`has
`
`to offer
`
`is to be addressed by four of NVIDIA's already-
`
`designated witnesses.
`
`(Memorandum Opinion, Docket No. 735, 4, 6-
`
`7).
`
`In briefing this motion, NVIDIA attempted to backtrack from
`
`this
`
`concession by stating that Shoquist's
`
`testimony will be
`
`non-cumulative
`
`because Shoquist will
`
`cover NVIDIA's business
`
`relationship with
`
`TSMC,
`
`while
`
`currently-designated witness
`
`Joseph Greco -
`
`one of
`
`the four already-designated,
`
`allegedly
`
`cumulative NVIDIA witnesses
`
`- will
`
`cover NVIDIA's
`
`technical
`
`relationship with
`
`TSMC.
`
`(Def.'s Mem.
`
`5). But,
`
`in light of
`
`NVIDIA's
`
`statements
`
`in the previous briefing,
`
`the question is
`
`not whether Shoquist
`
`and Greco
`
`are
`
`cumulative,
`
`but whether
`
`Shoquist
`
`and Greco
`
`and
`
`the
`
`three
`
`other
`
`already-designated
`
`witnesses
`
`are
`
`cumulative.
`
`By NVIDIA's
`
`admission,
`
`Shoquist's
`
`business testimony overlaps with James Chen and John Hu, ^ rather
`
`if at
`to testify by deposition,
`^ Chen and Hu are currently set
`all. NVIDIA attempts to argue that bringing Shoquist
`to testify
`in person is preferable
`to the alternative of Chen
`and Hu
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 832 Filed 03/14/16 Page 6 of 12 PageID# 42984
`
`than Greco.
`
`(Def.'s Reply
`
`3)
`
`(''If Ms.
`
`Shoquist
`
`testifies,
`
`neither
`
`James Chen nor
`
`John Hu need to testify regarding the
`
`business relationship...") . Even in the current
`
`round of briefing,
`
`NVIDIA concedes
`
`that Shoquist's
`
`testimony
`
`is
`
`not
`
`necessary,
`
`because Greco, Chen,
`
`and Hu will cover
`
`the same topics Shoquist
`
`would cover. Hence, 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. R. Civ. P. 16(e).
`
`B. 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 and second Koch factors, NVIDIA argues that
`
`Samsung cannot be surprised because,
`
`although Shoquist was not
`
`designated in its disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) as a
`
`person with knowledge of
`
`its defenses or of
`
`its case or as
`
`a
`
`witness under Fed.
`
`R. Civ.
`
`P.
`
`30(b)(6)
`
`(Memorandum Opinion,
`
`Docket No.
`
`735,
`
`3-4),
`
`Shoquist was mentioned
`
`by
`
`name
`
`and
`
`position during depositions
`
`and in NVIDIA's original
`
`January,
`
`(Def.'s Reply to Samsung's Opposition,
`testifying by deposition.
`Docket No.
`825,
`3) . NVIDIA hangs it 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.
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 832 Filed 03/14/16 Page 7 of 12 PageID# 42985
`
`2015 motion to supplement.
`
`(Memorandum Opinion, Docket No.
`
`735,
`
`4) . NVIDIA argues, moreover,
`
`that
`
`any resulting prejudice is
`
`curable
`
`because NVIDIA will make Shoquist
`
`available
`
`for
`
`a
`
`deposition.
`
`(Def.'s Mem. 6-7).
`
`NVIDIA's
`
`argument misunderstands
`
`the nature of
`
`''surprise"
`
`in the discovery context. Notice
`
`in a 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
`
`to non-disclosures
`
`by Dr.
`
`Jeongdong Choe
`
`C'Choe").
`
`(Memorandum Opinion, Docket No. 829, 12-16).
`
`In this situation,
`
`the fact
`
`that Shoquist's
`
`name arose in a deposition does not
`
`ameliorate surprise for
`
`the same reasons that deposition notice
`
`did not ameliorate surprise as to Choe: because Shoquist's name
`
`came
`
`up
`
`during depositions,
`
`Samsung was
`
`denied
`
`its
`
`proper
`
`opportunity
`
`to use
`
`the
`
`entire
`
`discovery
`
`period
`
`to examine
`
`Shoquist. Samsung's awareness does not mean that Samsung was not
`
`either
`
`surprised or able to effect
`
`a
`
`cure. Finding otherwise
`
`would run counter to the opinion on the Choe non-disclosure.
`
`Moreover, NVIDIA's offer
`
`to make Shoquist available for
`
`a
`
`deposition neither alleviates prejudice
`
`nor
`
`serves
`
`as
`
`fully
`
`effective cure. If NVIDIA had disclosed Shoquist properly in its
`
`disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 or as a designated witness
`
`under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b) (6), Samsung would have been able to
`
`do more than take a deposition: it could have used any discovery
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 832 Filed 03/14/16 Page 8 of 12 PageID# 42986
`
`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 was not possible to cure the
`
`surprise of adding Shoquist as a witness. Although proximity to
`
`trial certainly exacerbated the problem (it
`
`is clearly more
`
`difficult
`
`for
`
`a
`
`trial
`
`team to take a deposition a week before
`
`trial
`
`than it
`
`is for
`
`a
`
`trial
`
`team to take a deposition months
`
`away from trial) ,
`
`the original memorandum opinion made it quite
`
`that Samsung's complaints about
`in response,
`^ NVIDIA argues,
`being
`cut
`off
`are
`purely
`of
`discovery
`certain
`avenues
`("That claim is premature and,
`hypothetical.
`(Def.'s Reply,
`4)
`identify
`a
`single
`possible
`regardless,
`Samsung
`cannot
`^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, it 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 it
`appears
`reasonably
`calculated to
`lead to the
`discovery
`of
`admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 832 Filed 03/14/16 Page 9 of 12 PageID# 42987
`
`clear that
`
`the fact
`
`that Shoquist was not disclosed in time for
`
`general discovery was
`
`the animating factor of
`
`that decision.
`
`(Memorandum Opinion,
`
`Docket
`
`No.
`
`735,
`
`4,
`
`4-5).
`
`Samsung's
`
`inability to take the sort of discovery to which it would be
`
`entitled during the general discovery period 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, NVIDIA argues that designating
`
`Shoquist will not disrupt
`
`trial, because, although she is a new
`
`witness,
`
`she will
`
`not
`
`introduce
`
`a
`
`new ''issue"
`
`under Koch.
`
`(Def.'s Mem. 7).^ Shoquist
`
`is, however,
`
`a new witness, and a new
`
`witness means disruption to trial preparation,
`
`and thus to the
`
`trial. As
`
`the Court noted in its ruling on the original motion,
`
`''[t]he
`
`keystone
`
`of
`
`an
`
`efficient
`
`trial
`
`is
`
`preparation
`
`and
`
`preparation for
`
`this trial has been underway for
`
`some
`
`time."
`
`(Memorandum Opinion, Docket No.
`
`735,
`
`5) .
`
`If the Court granted
`
`NVIDIA's motion,
`
`Samsung would
`
`be
`
`required
`
`to conduct
`
`the
`
`deposition,
`
`review the deposition,
`
`and prepare cross-examination
`
`that Shoquist will not add any
`^ This persistent acknowledgement
`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.
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 832 Filed 03/14/16 Page 10 of 12 PageID# 42988
`
`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,
`
`and on these
`
`facts
`
`disruption
`
`plays
`
`a
`
`small
`
`role
`
`in
`
`the Court's Koch
`
`calculus.
`
`It
`
`does,
`
`however, marginally indicate
`
`that 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, however,
`
`the Koch factors tend to demonstrate
`
`that disclosure of Shoquist was
`
`a surprise and that, discovery
`
`having closed, Samsung cannot cure that surprise. This outweighs
`
`NVIDIA's
`
`lack of bad faith,
`
`and supports
`
`the conclusion that
`
`NVIDIA should not be permitted to supplement its witness list.
`
`that Shoquist's testimony would be
`'' Samsung argues that the fact
`''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.
`
`that NVIDIA is unsatisfied with its current
`^ Samsung alleges
`and
`is opportunistically using
`Samsung's
`crop
`of witnesses
`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
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 832 Filed 03/14/16 Page 11 of 12 PageID# 42989
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Many of
`
`the facts
`
`enumerated in the original opinion are
`
`also
`
`salient
`
`to
`
`the
`
`renewed motion.
`
`As
`
`to
`
`surprise
`
`and
`
`prejudice,
`
`(1) Shoquist was never disclosed as
`
`a knowledgeable
`
`person under Rule
`
`26 or designated as
`
`a witness on the topic
`
`under Rule 30(b)(6);
`
`(2) NVIDIA has
`
`four other witnesses
`
`to
`
`testify on this topic; and (3) Samsung has already invested time
`
`and
`
`resources
`
`conducting discovery against NVIDIA's properly
`
`disclosed witnesses
`
`and
`
`preparing
`
`for
`
`a
`
`trial with
`
`those
`
`witnesses as NVIDIA's witnesses on the topic of control. As
`
`to
`
`cure, because discovery is closed, Samsung would not be able to
`
`pursue
`
`paths
`
`of
`
`discovery other
`
`than
`
`a
`
`deposition.
`
`As
`
`to
`
`disruption to an orderly and efficient
`
`trial,
`
`the Court noted
`
`that
`
`the
`
`keystone
`
`of
`
`and
`
`efficiency
`
`is
`
`preparation,
`
`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. Although
`
`all
`
`of
`
`these
`
`factors were
`
`aggravated by the proximity of
`
`trial when the Court considered
`
`NVIDIA's original motion,
`
`they still require that
`
`the Court deny
`
`NVIDIA's motion now.
`
`In
`
`sum,
`
`Shoquist's
`
`testimony
`
`is
`
`cumulative
`
`of
`
`other
`
`corporate witnesses,
`
`such that
`
`there is no manifest
`
`injustice
`
`from not permitting her designation,
`
`and Shoquist's designation
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 832 Filed 03/14/16 Page 12 of 12 PageID# 42990
`
`would constitute an incurable surprise to Samsung.
`
`For
`
`these
`
`reasons, 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, Virginia
`Date: March
`/t-f , 2016
`
`12