Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05962/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05962-17/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. 3

On February 25, 2015, the Court held a further pretrial readiness conference. Following the 

discussion on the record therein, and the parties’ submission of a proposed form of order, the Court 

memorializes and issues the following orders: 

I. MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

A. Netlist’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence Regarding Prior Lawsuits, 

Financing and Licensing 

1. Evidence of Prior Lawsuits Involving Netlist 

Plaintiff Netlist, Inc.’s (“Netlist”) motion is GRANTED IN PART as to naming specific 

companies that Netlist has been involved with in litigation. Defendant Diablo Technologies, Inc. 

(“Diablo”) shall not argue or introduce testimony or evidence naming any company with which 

Netlist has been involved in litigation. However, Diablo witnesses may testify generally regarding 

their state of mind and belief, without referencing specific litigation or parties. To the extent Diablo 

seeks to admit documents that contain references to Netlist’s prior litigation, the litigation and party 

sections of those documents shall be redacted. 

Case 4:13-cv-05962-YGR Document 361 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 3
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 

2. Financing and Licensing 

As to Netlist’s motion to exclude evidence regarding Netlist’s financing and licensing, the 

parties shall meet and confer on which trial exhibits, and which portions of those exhibits, this ruling 

would affect. The parties shall deliver those excerpts, with the relevant portions highlighted, to the 

Court by the end of the day on February 27, 2015. 

Once the Court has reviewed the submitted documents, it will rule on which documents and 

which portions are admissible. 

B. Diablo’s Motion in Limine No. 1 (Anonymous Letter) 

As the Court stated in Pretrial Order No. 2 issued on February 17, 2015 (Dkt. No. 336), the 

parties have agreed that the letter itself will not be admitted into evidence. Pursuant to Pretrial Order 

No. 2, the parties have submitted deposition designations that include mention of the letter. The 

Court reserves ruling on the admissibility of those designations. 

C. Diablo’s Motion in Limine No. 2 (Contract Interpretation) 

Pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 2, Diablo has submitted six emails that it seeks to exclude. 

The Court will review those six emails and reserves ruling on their admissibility. 

Diablo also requests exclusion of any testimony by Netlist’s CEO C.K. Hong on industry 

custom and usage as to the implementation rights granted to Diablo in the parties’ Development and 

Supply Agreement. The Court reserves ruling on this issue until it has resolved whether this portion 

of the Development and Supply Agreement is ambiguous, and whether Netlist can establish a 

sufficient foundation for the testimony. 

In connection with this motion, both parties shall, in separate filings, by the end of the day on 

March 2, 2015, e-file documents setting forth: (1) the specific language in the Development and 

Supply Agreement that they believe is ambiguous; (2) their proposed meanings of those terms; and 

(3) any evidence supporting those proposed meanings. The parties shall file any responses to the 

other party’s filings by the end of the day on March 5, 2015. 

Case 4:13-cv-05962-YGR Document 361 Filed 02/27/15 Page 2 of 3
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 

D. Diablo’s Motion in Limine No. 3 (Netlist’s Harm) 

Diablo’s Motion in Limine No. 3 as to evidence of Netlist’s harm is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE to Diablo making objections at trial to specific testimony on the grounds of Federal Rule 

of Evidence 403. 

E. Diablo’s Motion in Limine No. 4 (HyperVault’s Use of Trade Secrets) 

Netlist shall e-file and submit to the Court, by the end of the day on February 27, 2015, no 

more than one page setting forth the evidence that Netlist intends to introduce at trial concerning the 

use of the Netlist Trade Secrets by its HyperVault module, now under development. The Court 

reserves ruling on this motion until it has reviewed this submission from Netlist. 

II. ISSUES RAISED BY PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

A. Unjust Enrichment 

Diablo’s objection to Netlist being allowed to seek unjust enrichment on its 

breach-of-contract claims is DENIED. 

B. Standard of Proof on Exemplary Damages for Trade Secret Misappropriation 

The Court reserves ruling regarding on which standard of proof it will instruct the jury 

regarding exemplary damages for trade secret misappropriation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 27, 2015 

______________________________________ 

HON. YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:13-cv-05962-YGR Document 361 Filed 02/27/15 Page 3 of 3