throbber
Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 832 Filed 03/14/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID# 42979
`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

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