Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07081/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-07081-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports. 1

 Defendant asserts claims for: fraud, constructive fraud, interference with economic

2

advantage, negligent interference with economic advantage, breach of contract, breach of

fiduciary duty of care, breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty, intentional infliction of emotional

distress, misappropriation of trade secret, negligence infliction of emotional distress, unjust

enrichment-assumpsit, and conversion.

Case No. C 06-7081 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIMS

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 1/25/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IQBAL HUSAIN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

AMJAD KHAN,

 Defendant.

Case Number C 06-7081 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 1

DISMISS DEFENDANT’S

COUNTERCLAIMS

Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Defendant’s counterclaims is DENIED. The Court is not

persuaded to a legal certainty that Defendant cannot prevail upon any of his claims at trial even

2

if the documents produced on January 15, 2010 are excluded from evidence. As Defendant

points out, he will be able to rely upon witness testimony and those documents previously

Case 5:06-cv-07081-JF Document 139 Filed 01/25/10 Page 1 of 2
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

 At the pretrial conference on January 22, 2010, the Court indicated that it was inclined 3

to deny Plaintiff’s motion to preclude Defendant from relying upon any of the approximately 700

documents that Defendant produced for the first time on January 15, 2010, but that such denial

would be conditioned upon the imposition of a monetary sanction against Defendant to

compensate Plaintiff for the delay and additional expense caused by the late production. 

Defendant’s counsel declined to stipulate to the imposition of such a sanction, and represented

that Defendant was willing to forego use of the late-produced documents. The Court then ruled

that the documents would be excluded. However, on Monday, January 25, 2010, Defendant’s

counsel informed chambers by telephone that Defendant had reconsidered his position and was

willing to pay a monetary sanction in order to use the late-produced documents. The Court

directed Defendant’s counsel to meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding an appropriate

sanction and any necessary adjustment to the trial schedule. Obviously, the motion to dismiss the

counterclaims becomes even less compelling in the event that the late-produced documents are

not excluded.

2

Case No. C 06-7081 JF (HRL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIMS

(JFLC2)

produced in this litigation.3

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 1/25/2010

____________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge 

Case 5:06-cv-07081-JF Document 139 Filed 01/25/10 Page 2 of 2