Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05962/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05962-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Anti-trust

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NETLIST, INC.,

Plaintiff,

VS.

DIABLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 13-cv-5962 YGR

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 2

On February 13, 2015, the Court held a pretrial readiness conference. Following the 

discussion on the record therein, the Court memorializes and issues the following orders:

I. Procedural Issues

A. Further Pretrial Conference

The Court sets a further pretrial readiness conference for Wednesday, February 25, 2015, at 

2:00 p.m.

B. Exhibits

Once the parties have finalized their meet and confer regarding exhibits, they shall file a 

Revised Joint Exhibit List. The parties shall submit all exhibits to the Court in electronic format. To 

the extent certain exhibits or portions of exhibits are the subject of, or exemplary of, issues raised in 

the outstanding motions in limine, such exhibits should be appropriately highlighted. 

C. Discovery Excerpts

The parties will further meet and confer and submit a revised Joint Pretrial List of Discovery 

Excerpts which more clearly identifies which excerpts are in dispute and which are not. To the 

extent there continue to be disputes with respect to the deposition designations, the parties are 

directed to provide the complete deposition, highlighting and annotating the portions as to which 

Case 4:13-cv-05962-YGR Document 336 Filed 02/17/15 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

there are objections. The parties shall also provide a proposed form of order on the objections, 

listing the objections on which a ruling is requested and a space to indicate the Court’s ruling (i.e.,

“sustained ____ overruled ____”) following each objection. The depositions and proposed order 

shall be provided to the Court no later than February 25, 2015. 

D. Protective Order Re: Trial

The parties’ Joint Proposal re: Trial Protective Order for Courtroom Attendees (Dkt. No. 324) 

is DENIED. The Court does not find the parties’ proposal to be workable and will not require 

members of the public who wish to observe the trial to execute an agreement in order to do so. 

E. Jury Questionnaires/Investigation

The parties will be provided with a copy of the completed jury questionnaires for the jury 

panel. The Court anticipates that copies of those questionnaires will be available to the parties by 

February 25, 2015. 

In accordance with Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.5(b) and A.B.A. Formal Opinion 

466, the parties “may review a juror’s or potential juror’s Internet presence, which may include 

postings by the juror or potential juror in advance of and during the trial, but...may not communicate 

directly or through another with a juror or potential juror.” A party “may not, either personally or 

through another, send an access request to a juror’s electronic social media. An access request is a 

communication to a juror asking the juror for information that the juror has not made public and that 

would be the type of ex parte communication prohibited by Model Rule 3.5(b).”

F. Jury Instructions 

The parties are directed to continue to meet and confer on their proposed jury instructions. 

Both parties may submit further briefing on their dispute regarding burden of proof instructions. The 

briefing may be no more than two pages each, to be filed no later than February 23, 2015. 

II. Motions In Limine

A. Netlist’s Motion In Limine

The motion is overly broad and does not identify specific evidence or examples of documents 

that Netlist is seeking to exclude beyond evidence that the parties have already stipulated will not be 

admissible. (See Dkt. No. 314 at Stipulation No. 1.) 

Case 4:13-cv-05962-YGR Document 336 Filed 02/17/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

B. Diablo’s Motions In Limine

1. MIL No. 1 (Anonymous Letter) 

The parties have agreed that the letter itself will not be admitted into evidence. The 

Court reserves ruling on the remainder of the motion until the parties have submitted any 

deposition designations that may include mention of the letter. 

2. MIL No. 2 (Contract Interpretation) 

The motion is overly broad since some extrinsic evidence relevant to contract 

interpretation within the categories identified is admissible. 

Diablo may submit a further brief of two pages specifically identifying the documents 

at issue and the applicable California authority for excluding them. Netlist may submit a 

two-page response. 

3. MIL. No. 3 (Irreparable Harm Evidence)

The parties agree, as does the Court, that evidence regarding prior rulings is not 

admissible. Further, the Court anticipates hearing evidence specific to the question of 

injunctive relief out of the presence of the jury, after it has been instructed. 

Diablo may submit briefing identifying the particular evidence on this issue that it

contends should not be admitted for consideration by the jury, and Netlist may submit a twopage response. 

Further, and related to the question of harm, Netlist contends that the jury should be 

instructed that unjust enrichment is a measure of contract damages. Netlist may submit a 

two-page brief on this issue and Diablo may submit a two-page response. 

4. MIL No. 4 (Products Using Trade Secrets) 

The parties continue to dispute whether evidence of use of the Trade Secrets in the 

planned Netlist HyperVault product should be excluded for failure to disclose in the course of 

discovery. Netlist contends the information was not covered by Diablo’s interrogatory and 

should not be excluded. 

Netlist may submit a two-page brief on this issue and Diablo may submit a two-page 

response. 

Case 4:13-cv-05962-YGR Document 336 Filed 02/17/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

5. MIL No. 5 (FUN DIMM) 

The motion in limine is DENIED. 

6. MIL No. 6 (Reasonable Royalty Damages) and No. 7 (Lost Opportunity 

Damages) 

The parties agree that these motions in limine are MOOT, based upon Netlist’s 

representations. 

7. MIL No. 8 (Head Start Period) 

The motion in limine is DENIED. Diablo’s objections to Jansen’s calculation of a head 

start period do not require exclusion of his opinion. The jury can give the testimony the 

appropriate weight.

8. MIL No. 9 (Jansen’s Statements Re: Contract Meaning) 

At the hearing Netlist agreed that any statements offered by Kenneth Jansen about the 

meaning of contract terms would be presented as assumptions, provided by Netlist, on which 

he based his damages analysis. Based on that limitation, the motion is DENIED AS MOOT. 

Where the Court has solicited further briefing and responses as stated above, unless otherwise 

stated, the supplemental briefing is due February 19, 2015, and the response briefing is due

February 23, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2015

______________________________________

HON. YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:13-cv-05962-YGR Document 336 Filed 02/17/15 Page 4 of 4