throbber
Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 829 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 36 PageID# 42940
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`
`Richmond Division
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`Civil Action No. 3:14cv757
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION,
`Defendant.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION
`
`This matter
`
`came before the Court
`
`on NVIDIA'S MOTION TO
`
`STRIKE THE
`
`TESTIMONY AND REVERSE
`
`ENGINEERING REPORTS OF DR.
`
`JEONGDONG CHOE PURSUANT TO RULE 37(c)
`
`{Docket No. 744). Having
`
`considered the associated papers and oral arguments, and for the
`
`reasons stated below,
`
`the Court orally granted the motion in
`
`part and denied the motion in part. The Court granted a mistrial
`
`as to the 6,287,902 ("'902")
`
`and 8,252,675 ("'675") patents in
`
`order to provide sufficient
`
`time during which NVIDIA Corporation
`
`might engage in curative expert discovery, but denied the motion
`
`as
`
`it pertained to striking the testimony or
`
`reports of Dr.
`
`Jeongdong Choe. This Memorandum Opinion followed.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`This patent
`
`infringement
`
`action was
`
`brought
`
`by
`
`Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`("Samsung")
`
`against NVIDIA Corporation
`
`("NVIDIA"), alleging infringement of
`
`the '902 and '675 patents,
`
`as well as
`
`the 6,819,602 patent {"'602").
`
`(Second Am. Compl.,
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 829 Filed 02/29/16 Page 2 of 36 PageID# 42941
`
`Docket No. 81).^
`
`As
`
`to the
`
`'675 and
`
`'902 patents, Samsung
`
`alleged,
`
`inter alia,
`
`that NVIDIA had infringed by importing,
`
`selling, and offering to sell infringing products that were made
`
`by an infringing process and under an infringing design.
`
`(Second
`
`Am. Compl.,
`
`551 1323-2135, 2288-2596}. More specifically, Samsung
`
`alleged that NVIDIA sold, offered for
`
`sale and imported the
`
`accused
`
`products
`
`from
`
`non-party
`
`Taiwan
`
`Semiconductor
`
`Manufacturing Company ("TSMC").
`
`Id.
`
`During
`
`discovery,
`
`Samsung
`
`sought
`
`evidence
`
`from TSMC
`
`regarding the design and
`
`the manufacturing of
`
`the
`
`allegedly
`
`infringing products
`
`(computers and the chips).
`
`(E.g., Pl.'s 0pp.
`
`to NVIDIA's Mtn.
`
`to Strike, Docket No.
`
`755,
`
`17)
`
`("Pl.'s Choe
`
`Mem."). TSMC was non-responsive to entreaties from the parties
`
`and the Court.
`
`Id.
`
`In the absence of evidence from TSMC about
`
`the design and the manufacturing process,
`
`Samsung elected to
`
`have an expert "tear down"
`
`the allegedly infringing chips
`
`and
`
`offer an opinion about
`
`the design of the accused chips and how
`
`TSMC had made them.
`
`Id. Samsung chose Dr.
`
`Jeongdong Choe
`
`("Dr.
`
`Choe"),
`
`an
`
`expert
`
`in
`
`reverse
`
`engineering
`
`employed
`
`by
`
`Techlnsights,
`
`Inc.
`
`("Techlnsights")
`
`to provide an expert
`
`report
`
`^ Other parties and claims were originally part of the action. By
`the time of trial,
`the parties had been whittled down to Samsung
`and
`NVIDIA,
`and
`the
`claims
`had
`been whittled
`down
`to
`infringement of the '602,
`'675, and '902 patents.
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 829 Filed 02/29/16 Page 3 of 36 PageID# 42942
`
`on the design and structure of
`
`the allegedly infringing chips
`
`and the process that TSMC used to make those chips.
`
`Id.
`
`At
`
`the outset of
`
`the case,
`
`the parties, with the approval
`
`of the Court, altered some of the disclosure obligations of Fed.
`
`R. Civ.
`
`P.
`
`26
`
`through
`
`a Stipulated Discovery Order, which
`
`provided that "all materials generated by a
`
`testifying expert
`
`with respect
`
`to that person's work are exempt
`
`from discovery
`
`unless relied upon by the expert
`
`in forming any opinions in this
`
`litigation." (Docket No. 198, 8-9)
`
`(emphasis added)In the run
`
`up to trial, NVIDIA served a Request for Production of documents
`
`seeking "documents and things generated by You or other(s)
`
`on
`
`your
`
`behalf
`
`...
`
`for
`
`litigation or
`
`non-litigation
`
`purposes,
`
`including but not
`
`limited to any teardown or reverse engineering
`
`reports, electron microscope images, product sample analysis, or
`
`product
`
`comparison
`
`reports."
`
`(Docket No.
`
`751,
`
`Ex. A).
`
`In
`
`response
`
`to
`
`that
`
`discovery
`
`request
`
`and
`
`pursuant
`
`to
`
`the
`
`Stipulated Discovery Order, Samsung committed to provide NVIDIA
`
`with the reverse engineering documents
`
`relied upon by Dr. Choe
`
`Federal Rules
`the
`like
`^ The Stipulated Discovery Order,
`protected communications between counsel and testifying experts
`(Docket No.
`193 S[ 5);
`see also, e.g.. Republic of Ecuador
`v
`Mackay,
`742
`F.3d
`860,
`869-70
`(9th Cir.
`2014); Republic of
`Ecuador
`v. Hinchee,
`741
`F.3d
`1185,
`1195
`(11th Cir.
`2013)
`Republic of Ecuador v.
`For
`Issuance of
`a
`Subpoena Under
`28
`U.S.C.
`Sec.
`1782(a),
`735 F.3d 1179,
`1186
`(10th Cir.
`2013)
`Siemens Med.
`Sols.
`USA,
`Inc.
`v.
`Saint-Gobain Ceramics
`Plastics,
`Inc., 637 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`&
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 829 Filed 02/29/16 Page 4 of 36 PageID# 42943
`
`in connection with his expert
`
`report.
`
`(Def.'s Mem.
`
`in Supp. of
`
`Mtn.
`
`to Strike the Testimony and Reverse Engineering Reports of
`
`Dr.
`
`Jeongdong Choe Pursuant
`
`to R. 37(c), Docket No.
`
`745,
`
`4-5
`
`("Def.'s Choe Mem."); Docket No. 751, Exs. B-E).
`
`Dr. Choe ultimately produced an expert report
`
`that
`
`included
`
`thirteen
`
`(and,
`
`following
`
`a
`
`supplement,
`
`fifteen)
`
`reverse
`
`engineering reports
`
`that cited numerous cross-sectional
`
`images
`
`of the allegedly infringing chips.
`
`(Def.'s Choe Mem. 6-8; Docket
`
`No. 751, Exs. H-J) . At his deposition. Dr. Choe testified that
`
`his
`
`expert
`
`reports
`
`and exhibits were
`
`accurate and complete.
`
`(Def.'s Choe Mem. 8; Docket No. 751, Ex. K 19:7-11; 41:16-42:11;
`
`46:16-17:14; 47:17-48:22; 289:13-19). Dr. Choe's
`
`report
`
`served
`
`as
`
`the
`
`foundation
`
`upon which
`
`both
`
`parties
`
`built
`
`their
`
`infringement
`
`cases because both parties'
`
`infringement experts
`
`based their analyses on Dr. Choe's explanation of the design and
`
`manufacture of accused chips produced for NVIDIA by TSMC.
`
`(E.g.,
`
`PI.'s Choe Mem. 16).
`
`During cross-examination at trial, Dr. Choe testified that,
`
`in forming his opinions,
`
`he
`
`had relied on
`
`images
`
`that were
`
`disclosed neither
`
`in his
`
`expert
`
`reports nor
`
`to counsel
`
`for
`
`either side.
`
`(Def.'s Choe Mem. 9-14;
`
`see also, e.g., Tr.
`
`Jan.
`
`28, 2016 518:1-519:22, 697:14-16; 705:16-21).
`
`In particular. Dr.
`
`Choe testified that he had reviewed a
`
`large number of so-called
`
`EDS
`
`and EEL
`
`images
`
`that were not disclosed,
`
`and that he had
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 829 Filed 02/29/16 Page 5 of 36 PageID# 42944
`
`relied on
`
`some of
`
`those
`
`images
`
`in reaching the
`
`conclusions
`
`stated in his expert
`
`reports and in his testimony at
`
`trial.
`
`In
`
`essence, Dr. Choe explained that he had used both the disclosed
`
`and undisclosed images:
`
`(1)
`
`to select
`
`the most
`
`representative
`
`images for disclosure in his report; and (2)
`
`to confirm that
`
`the
`
`images that he had reproduced in his reports and testified to at
`
`trial were accurate. According to Dr. Choe,
`
`the process that he
`
`followed
`
`is
`
`a
`
`standard
`
`process
`
`used
`
`both
`
`by Techlnsights
`
`specifically and
`
`by practitioners of
`
`semi-conductor
`
`reverse-
`
`engineering generally.
`
`Id.
`
`The Court
`
`instructed Samsung
`
`to procure
`
`the undisclosed
`
`images
`
`from Techlnsights
`
`and
`
`to
`
`provide
`
`them to
`
`NVIDIA
`
`immediately.
`
`(Tr.
`
`Jan. 29, 2016 744:8-21).
`
`Samsung did so.
`
`Id.
`
`Thereafter,
`
`and while trial was progressing on the '602 patent,
`
`NVIDIA's
`
`expert witness
`
`on
`
`infringement. Dr.
`
`Jack Lee
`
`("Dr.
`
`Lee"),
`
`performed a brief preliminary exam of
`
`the previously
`
`undisclosed
`
`images.
`
`NVIDIA
`
`concluded
`
`that
`
`some
`
`of
`
`the
`
`previously undisclosed materials
`
`upon which Dr. Choe
`
`relied
`
`demonstrated that silicon was present
`
`in the TiN/TaTiN layer of
`
`the
`
`allegedly infringing chips.
`
`(Def.'s Choe Mem.
`
`9).
`
`The
`
`presence of silicon in that
`
`layer
`
`is an important aspect of
`
`NVIDIA's non-infringement defense in this case.
`
`Id. The parties
`
`agreed upon an accelerated briefing schedule to address how this
`
`apparent discovery violation should be handled.
`
`(Tr.
`
`Jan.
`
`29,
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 829 Filed 02/29/16 Page 6 of 36 PageID# 42945
`
`2016
`
`963:17-964:10). This motion
`
`and
`
`the
`
`associated papers
`
`followed. Following oral argument,
`
`the Court declared a mistrial
`
`on the '675 and '902 patents, but proceeded with trial on the
`
`'602 patent.
`
`LAW AlID APPLICATION
`
`NVIDIA's motion for sanctions was filed pursuant
`
`to Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 37(c)(1), which provides that:
`
`If a party fails to provide information or
`identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a)
`or
`(e) ,
`the party is not allowed to use that
`information or witness to supply evidence on
`a motion,
`at
`a
`hearing,
`or at
`a
`trial,
`unless
`the
`failure
`was
`substantially
`justified or is harmless.
`In addition to or
`instead of
`this
`sanction,
`the
`court,
`on
`motion and after giving an opportunity to be
`heard:
`payment
`(A) may order
`including
`expenses,
`caused by the failure:
`(B) may
`inform the
`jury of
`failure; and
`(C) may impose other appropriate sanctions,
`including any of
`the orders
`listed in
`Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vi).
`
`reasonable
`the
`of
`attorney's
`fees,
`
`the party's
`
`Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P.
`
`37 (b) (2) (A) (i) - (vi) provides
`
`the following by
`
`way of alternate or additional sanctions:
`
`(i)
`
`the matters embraced in
`directing that
`the order or other designated facts be
`taken as
`established for purposes of
`the
`action,
`as
`the prevailing party
`claims;
`(ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from
`supporting
`or
`opposing
`designated
`claims or defenses, or
`from introducing
`designated matters in evidence;
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 829 Filed 02/29/16 Page 7 of 36 PageID# 42946
`
`(iii)striking pleadings in whole or in part;
`(iv) staying further proceedings until
`the
`order is obeyed;
`dismissing the action or proceeding in
`whole or in part;
`rendering
`a
`default
`the disobedient party
`
`judgment
`
`against
`
`(v)
`
`(vi)
`
`The process of deciding whether to impose sanctions such as
`
`those
`
`requested
`
`by NVIDIA involves
`
`three major
`
`steps:
`
`(1)
`
`determining that
`
`a violation of a discovery order or one of the
`
`Federal Rules
`
`of Civil
`
`Procedure
`
`occurred;
`
`(2)
`
`determining
`
`whether that violation was harmless and substantially justified,
`
`by reference to Southern States Rack & Fixture,
`
`Inc. v. Sherwin-
`
`Williams Co., 318 F.3d 592, 597 {4th Cir. 2003); and (3)
`
`fitting
`
`a sanction to the violation, if one is found.
`
`A.
`
`Establishing The Existence Of A Violation
`
`First,
`
`a court determines whether
`
`a violation of a
`
`rule of
`
`civil procedure or
`
`a court order has occurred. Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`26 requires
`
`that an expert witness's
`
`report must
`
`include "the
`
`facts or data considered by the witness in forming" his opinion.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`26 (a) (2) (b) (ii)
`
`(emphasis added). However,
`
`the
`
`parties, with the Court's
`
`approval,
`
`agreed
`
`to a Stipulated
`
`Discovery Order
`
`that provided:
`
`"all materials generated by a
`
`testifying expert with respect
`
`to that person's work are exempt
`
`from discovery unless relied upon by the expert
`
`in forming any
`
`opinions
`
`in this litigation."
`
`(Docket No.
`
`198,
`
`8-9)
`
`(emphasis
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 829 Filed 02/29/16 Page 8 of 36 PageID# 42947
`
`added). Thus,
`
`Samsung's obligation here was
`
`to disclose
`
`the
`
`documents upon which Dr. Choe relied.
`
`At
`
`trial, Dr. Choe's
`
`testimony was
`
`inconsistent
`
`about
`
`whether he relied upon the undisclosed scans.
`
`(E.g., Def.'s Choe
`
`Mem. 9-14, 16-17). On January 28, 2016,
`
`in response to questions
`
`on
`
`cross-examination by NVIDIA's
`
`counsel. Dr.
`
`Choe
`
`clearly
`
`stated that he had relied upon material
`
`that was not disclosed
`
`as part of his report.
`
`(Tr.
`
`Jan 28,
`
`2016 697:14-16, 702:10-22;
`
`Def.'s Choe Mem, 10-13).^ On January 29, 2016, Dr. Choe stated,
`
`with equal clarity,
`
`that he had not
`
`relied upon any material
`
`that was not disclosed as part of his report.
`
`(Tr. Jan. 29, 2016
`
`941:2-5; PI.'s Choe 0pp. 5-6). The parties concur that
`
`the Court
`
`is both the appropriate factfinder and the proper
`
`judge of Dr.
`
`^ Aside from several minutes of introductory remarks in English,
`Dr. Choe testified in Korean through an interpreter, whose work
`was verified by a check interpreter. The parties briefly tussled
`over whether Dr. Choe's understanding of "relied upon"
`is the
`result of potential
`linguistic difficulties.
`(E.g., Def.'s Choe
`Mem.
`1-2,
`18-21; Pl.'s Choe Mem.
`6). The Court declines
`to
`investigate potential alternate meanings of "relied upon":
`the
`interpreters were
`skilled and
`capable,
`and
`they articulated
`concerns
`about
`linguistic nuances when
`such
`concerns
`arose.
`(E.g., Tr. Jan. 29, 2016, 940:18-19). The Court is not qualified
`to judge linguistic nuances, and must rely upon the work of the
`translators. Moreover,
`if the Court began second-guessing the
`interpreters'
`translations of record,
`it would wreak havoc upon
`the Court and the parties' ability to rely upon that record. The
`Court and the parties are entitled to -
`and for
`the sake of an
`orderly record, must
`-
`rely upon
`the work
`of
`the
`capable
`translators.
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 829 Filed 02/29/16 Page 9 of 36 PageID# 42948
`
`Choe's credibility on this issue.
`
`(Def.'s Choe Mem. 16-18; Pl.'s
`
`Choe 0pp. 6-7).
`
`The Court
`
`finds
`
`that,
`
`in keeping with procedures
`
`used
`
`regularly by Techlnsights and others in the industry. Dr. Choe
`
`did rely upon images
`
`that were not disclosed with his expert
`
`report.
`
`The Court notes
`
`that,
`
`in failing to disclose
`
`those
`
`documents, Dr.
`
`Choe did not
`
`act duplicitously or with
`
`any
`
`awareness
`
`that he was not fulfilling Samsung's obligations.'' It
`
`is equally clear
`
`that Dr. Choe did not explain to Samsung's
`
`counsel
`
`that,
`
`in following his
`
`usual practice,
`
`he
`
`had not
`
`disclosed all the materials upon which he had relied.
`
`In an attempt
`
`to argue that
`
`the nondisclosure was still not
`
`a violation,
`
`Samsung characterizes the undisclosed material as
`
`"raw data
`
`and
`
`back-up
`
`files,"
`
`that,
`
`according
`
`to Samsung,
`
`typically fall outside
`
`the
`
`reach of Fed.
`
`R. Civ.
`
`P.
`
`26{a).
`
`(Pl.'s Choe 0pp. 7). There are two significant problems with
`
`Samsung's
`
`argument. First,
`
`the parties
`
`supplanted Rule 26(a)
`
`with
`
`their
`
`own
`
`Stipulated Discovery Order
`
`that
`
`required
`
`disclosure of whatever Dr. Choe relied upon to form or support
`
`his opinions.
`
`Thus,
`
`even if the non-disclosed documetns were
`
`^ The Court observes that standard practice in the semi-conductor
`industry is not standard practice in civil discovery. When the
`Court,
`by rule or order,
`requires greater disclosure than is
`standard in the industry,
`it is the Court's rule or order
`that
`governs.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 829 Filed 02/29/16 Page 10 of 36 PageID# 42949
`
`"raw data and back-up files," they had to be disclosed if Dr.
`
`Choe relied on them.
`
`Because Dr. Choe relied upon these scans,
`
`they were
`
`subject
`
`to disclosure.
`
`Second,
`
`the record suggests
`
`that
`
`the undisclosed information was not
`
`just "raw data or back
`
`up files." Much of the omitted materials were the same type of
`
`materials -
`
`EEL and EDS
`
`scans
`
`-
`
`that were
`
`submitted with Dr.
`
`Choe's
`
`expert
`
`report.
`
`(Def.'s Choe Mem.
`
`11-18). Dr. Choe's
`
`report
`
`-
`
`following semiconductor
`
`industry standard procedures -
`
`disclosed only one-tenth of
`
`these materials.
`
`{Def.'s Choe Br.
`
`17-18) . On the record before the Court,
`
`the materials disclosed
`
`are of the same kind and form (though not
`
`the exact content) as
`
`the materials that were not disclosed.
`
`Thus, it is not possible
`
`to characterize them as "raw date or back-up files" which would
`
`not be subject to the Stipulated Discovery Order.
`
`On this basis,
`
`the Court finds that, by failing to disclose
`
`all of
`
`the materials
`
`relied upon
`
`by
`
`its
`
`expert. Dr. Choe,
`
`Samsung violated the Stipulated Discovery Order. Although the
`
`nondisclosure was not
`
`known by Samsung or
`
`its counsel,
`
`it
`
`is
`
`nonetheless the responsibility of counsel
`
`to make clear to their
`
`experts the scope of applicable disclosure obligations.
`
`Thus,
`
`Dr. Choe's
`
`nondisclosure
`
`and
`
`the
`
`resulting
`
`violation must
`
`ultimately be attributed to Samsung.
`
`B.
`
`Substantially Justified And Harmless (Southern States)
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 829 Filed 02/29/16 Page 11 of 36 PageID# 42950
`
`standing alone, nondisclosure does not
`
`require or
`
`justify
`
`corrective action. A court only takes action if the failure to
`
`disclose was not
`
`(1)
`
`substantially justified and (2) harmless.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1); Southern States,
`
`318 F.3d at 595.
`
`In
`
`the Fourth Circuit,^ substantial
`
`justification and harmlessness
`
`are determined by reference to five factors stated in Southern
`
`States:
`
`(1)
`
`The surprise to the party against whom the evidence would
`
`be offered.
`
`(2)
`
`The ability of that party to cure the surprise.
`
`(3)
`
`The extent
`
`to which allowing the evidence would disrupt
`
`the t r i a l .
`
`(4)
`
`The importance of the evidence,® and
`
`(5)
`
`The nondisclosing party's explanation for
`
`its failure to
`
`disclose the evidence.^
`
`a district court's decision to
`reviews
`^ The Federal Circuit
`the law of
`the regional circuit. Tokai
`exclude evidence under
`Corp. V. Easton Enterprises,
`Inc.,
`632 F.3d 1358,
`1364
`(Fed.
`Cir. 2011) .
`
`save improperly
`®"Importance of the evidence" cannot, by itself,
`disclosed evidence from being found unjustified or non-harmless.
`Even if a party's entire case hangs on one expert,
`such that
`excluding
`the
`expert
`leads
`inevitably
`to
`summary
`judgment
`against
`that party,
`then that expert's testimony may be excluded
`if
`that
`expert's
`testimony was
`improperly disclosed. E.g.,
`Zaklit v. Global Linguist Solutions, LLC, 2014 WL 4925780 (E.D.
`Va. Sept. 30, 2014).
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 829 Filed 02/29/16 Page 12 of 36 PageID# 42951
`
`Southern States,
`
`318 F.3d at 597. The burden of establishing
`
`these
`
`factors
`
`lies with the nondisclosing party. Wilkins
`
`v.
`
`Montgomery,
`
`751 F.3d 214, 222
`
`(4th Cir. 2014); Southern States,
`
`318
`
`F.3d
`
`at
`
`596.
`
`If
`
`the
`
`failure
`
`to
`
`disclose
`
`was
`
`not
`
`"substantially justified" and "harmless,"
`
`then then the court
`
`proceeds to impose a sanction.
`
`Applying the Southern States factors
`
`to this case,
`
`it
`
`is
`
`clear
`
`that Samsung's
`
`failure to disclose was neither harmless
`
`nor substantially justified.
`
`Each factor will be considered in
`
`turn.
`
`1.
`
`Surprise and Cure
`
`Samsung
`
`argues
`
`that NVIDIA cannot
`
`be
`
`surprised by
`
`the
`
`nondisclosure
`
`and was
`
`able
`
`to easily cure
`
`the nondisclosure
`
`because NVIDIA was on notice about Dr. Choe's methods months
`
`before
`
`this
`
`trial.
`
`Samsung
`
`also
`
`points
`
`out
`
`that,
`
`through
`
`hearings
`
`and depositions, NVIDIA received notice as early as
`
`August
`
`31,
`
`2015,
`
`that Dr.
`
`Choe
`
`had
`
`relied on
`
`undisclosed
`
`documents.
`
`(Pl.'s Choe 0pp. 9-11).® Thus, Samsung argues, NVIDIA
`
`^ Bad faith is explicitly not one of the Southern States factors.
`E.g., Southern States, 318 F.3d at 596 ("excluding evidence only
`when the nondisclosing party acted in bad faith would undermine
`the basic purpose of Rule 37(c)(1):
`preventing surprise and
`prejudice
`to the
`opposing party);
`Rambus,
`Inc.
`v.
`Infineon
`Technologies, AG, 145 F. Supp. 2d 721, 725-27 (E.D. Va. 2001).
`
`that NVIDIA was on notice of Dr. Choe's
`® Samsung also argues
`scan-selection methods as early as May 18, 2015, when Dr. Choe
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 829 Filed 02/29/16 Page 13 of 36 PageID# 42952
`
`could not have been surprised by the testimony at trial,
`
`and it
`
`would have been easy for NVIDIA to have cured this violation if
`
`NVIDIA had acted when it received notice.® (Pl.'s Choe 0pp. 8-
`
`14). On this record, it is evident
`
`that Dr. Choe's disclosure of
`
`the process that he followed at various proceedings put counsel
`
`for NVIDIA and Samsung on notice that Dr. Choe's
`
`report would
`
`disclose only some of the scans upon which he relied.
`
`However, notice in deposition testimony does not
`
`render
`
`a
`
`failure
`
`to
`
`disclose
`
`in
`
`the
`
`expert
`
`report
`
`unsurprising
`
`or
`
`curable,
`
`even when that deposition testimony completely covers
`
`the material
`
`that
`
`should have been disclosed. E.g., Perkins v.
`
`United States,
`
`626
`
`F.
`
`Supp.
`
`2d
`
`587,
`
`591-92
`
`(E.D. Va.
`
`2009)
`
`(relying on Carr v. Deeds,
`
`453 F.3d 593,
`
`604
`
`(4th Cir. 2006)).
`
`This
`
`is because "Rule 26 disclosures are often the centerpiece
`
`of discovery in litigation that uses expert witnesses. A party
`
`that
`
`fails to provide these disclosures unfairly inhibits its
`
`opponent's ability to properly prepare, unnecessarily prolongs
`
`litigation,
`
`and undermines
`
`the district court's management of
`
`the case." Carr,
`
`453 F.3d 593,
`
`at
`
`604; Campbell v. United
`
`separate ITC proceeding also between Samsung
`was deposed in a
`and NVIDIA.
`(Pl.'s Choe 0pp. 9). It is the Court's understanding
`that NVIDIA's outside
`counsel
`in this
`case
`also represents
`NVIDIA in the ITC proceeding.
`® The Court observes that this argument cuts both ways. If NVIDIA
`was on notice of the violation in August,
`then Samsung also was
`on notice on the violation in August,
`and could have remedied
`the violation before trial.
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 829 Filed 02/29/16 Page 14 of 36 PageID# 42953
`
`States, 2011 WL 588344 (E.D. Va. Feb. 8, 2011)
`
`(noting that Rule
`
`26(a)(2)
`
`exists partly so
`
`that parties are not
`
`required to
`
`discover
`
`the basis
`
`for an expert's testimony entirely through
`
`deposition testimony);
`
`see also Abraham v. Cty. of Greenville,
`
`237 F.3d 386, 392-93
`
`(4th Cir. 2001)
`
`(noting that one party's
`
`failure
`
`to
`
`file
`
`a motion
`
`to
`
`compel
`
`did
`
`not waive
`
`the
`
`nondisclosing party's obligation to disclose); Adams v. Kroqer
`
`Ltd. P'ship I, No. 3:11-CV-141, 2013 WL 6229379, at *2
`
`(E.D. Va.
`
`Dec.
`
`2,
`
`2013)
`
`(noting the general proposition that what
`
`an
`
`opposing party should have known does not affect a nondisclosing
`
`party's obligations). A failure to disclose in the right
`
`form,
`
`at
`
`the
`
`right
`
`time,
`
`impedes
`
`discovery
`
`at
`
`the
`
`time
`
`of
`
`nondisclosure,
`
`such that
`
`later putting the opposing party on
`
`notice
`
`does
`
`not
`
`render
`
`the
`
`nondisclosure
`
`unsurprising
`
`or
`
`curable.
`
`The United States Court of Appeals
`
`for
`
`the Fourth Circuit
`
`and the district courts in this circuit are clear that an expert
`
`report
`
`should be
`
`a
`
`comprehensive
`
`document
`
`that,
`
`by
`
`itself,
`
`provides all
`
`the expert's opinions
`
`that will
`
`be offered at
`
`trial,
`
`along with the bases
`
`for
`
`those opinions. Campbell v.
`
`United States,
`
`470 Fed. App'x 153
`
`(4th Cir.
`
`2012); Zakit v.
`
`Global Linguist Solutions,
`
`LLC,
`
`2014 WL 4925780, at
`
`*3
`
`("the
`
`advisory committee intended that an expert's written report be
`
`so detailed and complete that it would Mispense[] with the need
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 829 Filed 02/29/16 Page 15 of 36 PageID# 42954
`
`to depose
`
`the expert."); Sharpe v. United States,
`
`230 F.R.D.
`
`452, 458 (E.D. Va. 2005). The significance of the expert report
`
`as
`
`the proper
`
`time
`
`and place
`
`for
`
`complete disclosure
`
`finds
`
`support
`
`in the structure of discovery: experts provide reports,
`
`and those reports form the basis for informed deposition-taking.
`
`Campbell,
`
`2011 WL 588344 at *3
`
`(noting that
`
`"Rule 26 provides
`
`that
`
`an
`
`expert deposition
`
`^may
`
`be
`
`conducted only after
`
`the
`
`[expert's]
`
`report
`
`is provided'"
`
`to support
`
`the notion that
`
`revealing information at
`
`a deposition does not alleviate the
`
`surprise or incurability of a failure to disclose in a report).^®
`
`In conclusion,
`
`the
`
`record is clear
`
`that NVIDIA was
`
`on
`
`notice that Dr, Choe's
`
`report would disclose only a portion of
`
`the
`
`scans upon which he
`
`relied. However,
`
`that notice is not
`
`dispositive to a Southern States surprise or curability analysis
`
`because
`
`the
`
`duty
`
`to
`
`timely
`
`and
`
`completely
`
`fulfill
`
`expert
`
`disclosure requirements
`
`rests at all
`
`times on the proponent of
`
`the expert witness. What NVIDIA could have done does not alter
`
`what Samsung ought to have done.
`
`are
`disclosures
`expert's
`an
`is different when
`rule
`The
`complete, but simply not articulated as clearly as it might have
`been. Golden Nugget,
`Inc. v. Chesapeake Bay Fishing Co., L.C.,
`93 F. App'x 530, 536 {4th Cir. 2004). The case before this Court
`is not
`one of
`lack of clarity,
`however,
`but of
`absence of
`material.
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 829 Filed 02/29/16 Page 16 of 36 PageID# 42955
`
`Additionally,
`
`notice at
`
`a deposition is
`
`insufficient
`
`to
`
`cure a
`
`failure to disclose materials that ought
`
`to have been
`
`included in the expert
`
`report because disclosure in the right
`
`form (complete)
`
`and at
`
`the right
`
`time {with the expert
`
`report,
`
`before
`
`the expert's deposition)
`
`is critical
`
`to an
`
`opposing
`
`party's
`
`ability to
`
`engage
`
`in meaningful
`
`expert
`
`discovery
`
`(critical analysis of
`
`the expert's
`
`report,
`
`and
`
`taking of
`
`a
`
`targeted deposition) ,
`
`In this case,
`
`the only way to cure the
`
`surprise (such as it was) at
`
`this juncture is to give NVIDIA an
`
`opportunity to engage in the full expert discovery to which it
`
`was entitled. The nature of
`
`this cure will be discussed in a
`
`following section.
`
`2.
`
`Disruption To Trial
`
`The
`
`^602 patent did not
`
`involve any of Dr. Choe's work, and
`
`required only several days of evidence. Accordingly,
`
`there was
`
`no disruption of the trial as to that patent.
`
`However, on this
`
`record,
`
`the consequence of effecting the only meaningful cure
`
`for
`
`the nondisclosure was complete disruption of
`
`the trial on
`
`the ^902 and ^675 patents.
`
`Theoretically, as Samsung urged,
`
`the Court might have:
`
`(1)
`
`directed the parties
`
`to
`
`proceed with
`
`the
`
`presentation
`
`of
`
`evidence
`
`on
`
`the
`
`'602 patent;
`
`(2)
`
`allowed NVIDIA to conduct
`
`expert discovery while trial on the
`
`*602 patent was underway;
`
`and
`
`(3) directed the parties to proceed with evidence on the
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 829 Filed 02/29/16 Page 17 of 36 PageID# 42956
`
`'675 and '902 patents promptly after the conclusion of evidence
`
`on
`
`the
`
`'602 patent.
`
`That would have
`
`allowed the
`
`trial
`
`to
`
`proceed roughly within the time period allocated for trial,
`
`and
`
`all
`
`three
`
`patents would
`
`have
`
`been
`
`tried before
`
`the
`
`jury
`
`originally chosen
`
`for
`
`that
`
`purpose.
`
`In
`
`other words,
`
`this
`
`theoretical alternative would have kept
`
`the trial going with
`
`minimal disruption to the jury and the Court.
`
`However,
`
`forcing NVIDIA to complete
`
`supplemental
`
`expert
`
`discovery in a matter of days would have been an ineffective
`
`opportunity to cure,
`
`so much so that it would essentially have
`
`been
`
`no
`
`cure at all. Techlnsights
`
`spent
`
`hundreds
`
`of
`
`hours
`
`processing these images.
`
`(Tr. Feb. 1, 2016 1229:15-16). Asking
`
`NVIDIA to analyze,
`
`depose
`
`on,
`
`and produce
`
`jury-ready expert
`
`opinions on these images over
`
`the course of a
`
`few days,
`
`in the
`
`middle of a
`
`trial, would be an impossible schedule, even by the
`
`standards
`
`of
`
`large-scale
`
`civil
`
`litigation.
`
`In
`
`sum,
`
`forcing
`
`NVIDIA to conduct expert discovery in a time period short enough
`
`to avoid disrupting the trial would have meant
`
`that NVIDIA could
`
`not conduct effective expert discovery.
`
`On
`
`the other
`
`hand,
`
`curing the
`
`failure
`
`to disclose
`
`by
`
`excluding Dr. Choe entirely,
`
`as NVIDIA urged, would make
`
`it
`
`impossible to hold a trial on the '675 and '902 patents at all.
`
`Both Samsung and NVIDIA's
`
`infringement experts predicate their
`
`opinions upon Dr. Choe's report.
`
`If the Court had excluded Dr.
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 829 Filed 02/29/16 Page 18 of 36 PageID# 42957
`
`Choe's
`
`report,
`
`then neither
`
`infringement
`
`expert
`
`could speak
`
`intelligently about
`
`infringement,
`
`because both relied on Dr.
`
`Choe's analyses and opinions in framing their own opinions.
`
`The
`
`fact
`
`that
`
`it was
`
`impossible to cure the failure to
`
`disclose without significantly disrupting the trial demonstrates
`
`the failure to disclose was not harmless.
`
`3.
`
`The Nondisclosing Party's Explanation
`
`Samsung stresses that it held a good faith belief that
`
`the
`
`reports it disclosed contained all of
`
`the material
`
`relied upon
`
`by Dr. Choe
`
`in reaching his
`
`opinions,
`
`as
`
`required by
`
`the
`
`Stipulated Discovery Order.
`
`(Pl.'s Choe 0pp. 5-7, 17). The Court
`
`has no doubt
`
`that is true. Additionally,
`
`the parties agree that
`
`the
`
`experts
`
`believed
`
`that Dr. Choe's
`
`report
`
`as
`
`disclosed
`
`followed the semi-conductor industry standard.
`
`(Def.'s Choe Mem.
`
`10, 17-18; Pl.'s Choe 0pp. 17).
`
`But faith - good or bad -
`
`is not
`
`relevant
`
`the substantial
`
`justification component or the harmless component of a Southern
`
`States analysis. Southern States,
`
`318 F.3d at 596; Rambus,
`
`145
`
`F.
`
`Supp,
`
`2d at
`
`725-27.^^
`
`Instead,
`
`"explanation"
`
`looks
`
`to the
`
`objective
`
`circumstances
`
`surrounding
`
`the
`
`nondisclosure.
`
`E.g.
`
`Southern States,
`
`318 F.3d at
`
`598
`
`(considering argument
`
`that
`
`nondisclosing party failed to disclose because opposing party
`
`into play in fitting the sanction to the
`Good faith comes
`failure, discussed in a subsequent section.
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 829 Filed 02/29/16 Page 19 of 36 PageID# 42958
`
`delayed producing formula
`
`upon which undisclosed opinion was
`
`based);
`
`Rambus,
`
`145 F.
`
`Supp.
`
`2d at
`
`732
`
`(considering whether
`
`actions
`
`of
`
`court
`
`and
`
`opposing
`
`party
`
`justified
`
`belated
`
`disclosure).
`
`In that
`
`sense,
`
`"explanation"
`
`looks more at
`
`the
`
`feasibility of
`
`full
`
`and
`
`timely disclosure
`
`than it
`
`does
`
`at
`
`parties'
`
`intent.
`
`Examining
`
`the
`
`circumstances here,
`
`it
`
`is clear
`
`that
`
`the
`
`nondisclosure
`
`arose
`
`because
`
`Samsung's
`
`counsel
`
`failed
`
`to
`
`understand the full extent of
`
`the material
`
`relied upon by Dr.
`
`Choe,
`
`and
`
`hence
`
`the
`
`full
`
`extent
`
`of
`
`Samsung's
`
`disclosure
`
`obligations under
`
`the Stipulated Discovery Order.
`
`(Pl.'s Choe
`
`Mem. 3-7). Counsel's lack of knowledge of the full extent of Dr.
`
`Choe's disclosure obligations
`
`is not
`
`the sort of circumstance
`
`that substantially justifies a nondisclosure. Campbell,
`
`2011 WL
`
`588344, at *5.^^ Indeed, any contrary holding would minimize the
`
`obligation that
`
`counsel bears
`
`to fully understand what
`
`their
`
`retained experts
`
`are doing and to make Rule
`
`26 disclosures
`
`accordingly.
`
`Furthermore,
`
`any contrary holding would neglect
`
`that expert witnesses are under contract
`
`to the hiring party.
`
`if NVIDIA was on notice of Dr.
`the Court notes that,
`" Again,
`Choe's
`inadequate methods,
`then Samsung also was on notice of
`Dr. Choe's inadequate methods as early as August 31, 2015 (Pl.'s
`Choe
`0pp.
`9-11). As
`such,
`the ability to properly disclose
`through supplementation prior
`to trial was not
`the
`sort of
`circumstance outside Samsung's control
`that provides an adequate
`"explanation" under Southern States.
`
`19
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 829 Filed 02/29/16 Page 20 of 36 PageID# 42959
`
`e»q-> Burger
`
`v. Allstate
`
`Ins. Co.,
`
`No.
`
`07-11870,
`
`2009 WL
`
`1587396, at *1
`
`(E.D. Mich.
`
`June 8, 2009), and that their actions
`
`must be attributed to the party if the Court
`
`is to maintain
`
`reasonable control over discovery.
`
`In conclusion,
`
`the Southern States factors uniformly weigh
`
`against
`
`finding that Samsung's failure to disclose was harmless
`
`or substantially justified.
`
`C.
`
`Fitting The Sanction To The Failure
`
`Having determined that
`
`a violation occurred,
`
`and that
`
`the
`
`violation was not harmless or
`
`substantially justified,
`
`it
`
`is
`
`necessary to determine what sanction to impose.
`
`Although Fed.
`
`R. Civ.
`
`P.
`
`37(c) (1)
`
`is often read as
`
`an automatic preclusion
`
`sanction against
`
`a noncomplying party that prevents that party
`
`from offering the nondisclosed evidence at
`
`trial,
`
`the second
`
`sentence of
`
`the rule permits "other appropriate sanctions" in
`
`addition to or in lieu of the automatic preclusion. Rambus, 145
`
`F. Supp.
`
`2d at 724. District courts enjoy broad discretion to
`
`select
`
`an appropriate remedy in light of
`
`the totality of
`
`the
`
`circumstances. Southern States, 318 F.3d at 593; Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`37(c) (1) .
`
`The Fourth Circuit employs
`
`a
`
`four-part
`
`test
`
`to guide the
`
`exercise of that discretion:
`
`(1) Whether the non-complying party acted in bad faith;
`
`20
`
`

`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 829 Filed 02/29/16 Page 21 of 36 PageID# 42960
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`The amount of prejudice that noncompliance caused the
`adversary;
`
`The need for deterrence of the particular sort of non-
`compliance; and
`
`less
`(4) Whether
`effective.
`
`drastic
`
`sanctions
`
`would
`
`have
`
`been
`
`Law Enforcement Alliance of Am.,
`
`Inc. v. USA Direct,
`
`Inc. ^ 61
`
`Fed. App'x 822, 830
`
`(4th Cir. 2003)
`
`(quoting Anderson v. Found.
`
`for Advancement, Educ.
`
`and Employment of Am.
`
`Indians^ 155 F.3d
`
`500,
`
`504
`
`(4th Cir.
`
`1998));
`
`see
`
`also Flame
`
`S.A.
`
`v.
`
`Indus.
`
`Carriers,
`
`Inc.,
`
`39 F. Supp.
`
`3d 752,
`
`764
`
`(E.D. Va. 2014). The
`
`Fourth Circuit has also noted a need for sanctions to "level []
`
`the evidentiary playing field." Silvestri v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
`
`271
`
`F.3d
`
`583,
`
`590
`
`(4th Cir.
`
`2001)
`
`(evaluating
`
`appropriate
`
`sanction in case of spoliation) .
`
`NVIDIA
`
`requested
`
`that
`
`the Court
`
`impose
`
`one
`
`of
`
`two
`
`sanctions:
`
`(1)
`
`exclude Dr. Choe's
`
`testimony, or
`
`(2) declare a
`
`mistrial on the '675 and '902 patents. For
`
`the reasons stat

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket