`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC., et al,
`
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC., et al. §
` (LEAD CASE)
`
`
`
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-163 -JDL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Defendant ALE USA, Inc.’s (“ALE”) Motion to Strike the
`
`Supplemental Rebuttal Report of Chrimar’s technical expert, Dr. Madisetti (Doc. No. 315).
`
`Plaintiffs Chrimar Systems, Inc. and Chrimar Holding Company, LLC (“Chrimar”) have filed a
`
`response (Doc. Nos. 328). Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments, ALE’s Motion (Doc.
`
`Nos. 315) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART, as set forth herein.
`
`On September 13, 2016, this Court held a pretrial conference at which the Court took up
`
`the parties’ motions in limine. In ruling on those motions, the Court permitted ALE’s expert, Ian
`
`Crayford, to submit a short supplemental report to address documents that were newly produced
`
`by Chrimar on September 6, 2016. (Doc. No. 293, “Hearing Transcript” or “Tr.” at 137:17–21.)
`
`In addition, the Court stated to Chrimar’s counsel, “Mr. Cohen, if you want to provide a
`
`supplemental response to that, as to those documents that were produced on the 6th and Mr.
`
`Crayford provides some information, do that by Friday, the 23rd.” Id. at 18–21. ALE now moves
`
`to strike paragraphs 22–27 and 40–56 of Dr. Madisetti’s rebuttal report as outside the scope of
`
`the Court’s order on supplementation. (Doc. No. 315, at 3–4.)
`
`As an initial matter, Chrimar has agreed to withdraw paragraphs 40–56. (Doc. No. 328, at
`
`1.) Accordingly, that portion of the motion (Doc. No. 315) is DENIED as moot. As to
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 6:15-cv-00163-JDL Document 331 Filed 09/29/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 13860
`
`paragraphs 22–27, ALE contends that these paragraphs cover two letters from Mr. Boenke that
`
`were produced at the outset of this case and included in Mr. Crayford’s original expert report.
`
`(Doc. No. 315, at 3.) Chrimar contends that these letters were addressed in Mr. Crayford’s
`
`supplemental report and that Dr. Madisetti’s response is therefore proper rebuttal. (Doc. No. 328,
`
`at 2.) Chrimar does not address the time of production of these letters or that they were included
`
`in Mr. Crayford’s original report.
`
`
`
`Here, the Court specifically limited any supplementation and response thereto to the
`
`newly produced documents produced on September 6, 2016. It is not disputed that these
`
`documents were produced early on in this litigation and that Mr. Crayford addressed these
`
`documents in his original report. See, e.g., Doc. No. 315-4, at ¶¶ 883–897. Because paragraphs
`
`22–27 of Dr. Madisetti’s rebuttal report discuss only these letters in rebuttal, which were not
`
`included in the new production and were included in Mr. Crayford’s original report, the Court
`
`finds they are outside the scope of the Court’s order regarding supplementation and rebuttal and
`
`ultimately untimely. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS ALE’s motion (Doc. No. 315) as to
`
`paragraphs 22–27 of Dr. Madisetti’s rebuttal report.
`
`
`
`
`
` So ORDERED and SIGNED this 29th day of September, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
