Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05429/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05429-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENENTECH, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INSMED INCORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-5429 CW (EMC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO STRIKE THE

SUPPLEMENTAL REBUTTAL EXPERT

REPORT OF CHRISTOPHER A.

MAACK

(Docket Nos. 311, 346)

The Court has reviewed the instant dispute (Docket No. 311) briefed by the parties in a joint

letter (Docket No. 346) to the Court dated March 10, 2006. Having considered the arguments and

materials submitted, and good cause appearing therefor, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to

strike the supplemental rebuttal expert report of Christopher A. Maack (Docket No. 311).

As set forth in the authority cited by Plaintiffs, the issue is properly analyzed under the five

factor test set forth in Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990), cited in Keener v.

United States, 181 F.R.D. 639, 641 (D. Mont. 1998).

First, regarding the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, permitting the

filing of the supplemental report three (3) business days after the scheduled deadline will not

materially delay this litigation, especially given the limited focus of the supplemental report.

Second, although the deadlines imposed by the Court must be taken seriously, the delay here

is slight. While Defendants’ excuse is not particularly compelling (a large part of the reason for the

delay turns on the last minute filing of another of its own experts and Dr. Maack’s personal

schedule), there was no wilful intent or bad faith attempt to flout the Court’s order.

Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 347 Filed 03/13/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Third, there is little risk of any significant prejudice to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have received

the supplemental report with ample time to prepare for Dr. Maack’s deposition. If they need

additional time, a stipulation should be sought and granted. Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Roberts, has had

more than two weeks to consider the supplemental report in preparation for his deposition so he is

not prejudiced. Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate how the delay will materially impair their

ability to timely prepare their summary judgment motions and claim construction briefs.

Fourth, public policy favors disposition of cases on their merits. This cuts in favor of

permitting the supplemental report.

Fifth, there are less drastic sanctions than preclusion of the report and its potential

concomitant affect of delimiting the scope of Dr. Maack’s testimony at trial. In particular, the Court

will award reasonable fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs in bringing this motion. The motion was

a reasonable response caused by Defendants’ tardy submission of the supplemental report.

This case is distinguishable from Keener. As the court stated: “The difference between the

two disclosures is dramatic. The second disclosure provides opinions that go to the heart of the case. 

The first is tantamount to a non-opinion.” 181 F.R.D. at 641. The second report was not a

supplement that could be characterized as “correcting inaccuracies, or filling the interstices of an

incomplete report based on information that was no available at the time of the initial disclosure.” 

Id. at 640. The defendant in Keener sought to gain a tactical advantage by lying in wait until after

the plaintiff disclosed his expert opinions. Id. at 641. In the instant case, there was no such dramatic

difference. The supplemental report may fairly be characterized as “filling the interstices” based on

late information received from Dr. Parsley’s report and the late disclosed information about

Plaintiffs’ hybridization experiments. The basic sequence of disclosures was not altered so

Defendants did not gain a tactical advantage.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 347 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

For these reasons, Dr. Maack’s supplemental report is permitted. Plaintiffs may submit a

declaration regarding fees and costs within seven (7) days of this order.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 311 and 346.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2006

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 347 Filed 03/13/06 Page 3 of 3