Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-02549/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-02549-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

242

1 [PROPOSED] ORDER SUSTAINING PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY

OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS OF GREGORY L. LUCAS, ROBERT

MORGENSEN AND MARK FRATER

CASE NO. CV 03-02549 SBA

Matthew H. Poppe (State Bar No. 177854)

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

1000 Marsh Road

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Telephone: (650) 614-7400

Facsimile: (650) 614-7401

Robert M. Isackson (admitted pro hac vice)

W. Benjamin Tabler (admitted pro hac vice)

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

666 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10103

Telephone: (212) 506-5000

Facsimile: (212) 506-5151

Attorneys for Plaintiff

NIKKO MATERIALS USA, INC. d/b/a GOULD

ELECTRONICS, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

NIKKO MATERIALS USA, INC., an

Arizona corporation, d/b/a GOULD

ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

R.E. SERVICE CO., INC., a California

corporation,

Defendant.

CASE NO. CV 03-02549 SBA (JL)

[PROPOSED] ORDER SUSTAINING PLAINTIFF’S

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATIONS OF

GREGORY L. LUCAS, ROBERT MORGENSEN,

AND MARK FRATER IN SUPPORT OF R.E.

SERVICE CO. INC.’S OPPOSITION TO NIKKO’S

MOTION TO CORRECT THE JUDGMENT

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 60(A) OR IN THE

ALTERNATIVE TO ALTER OR AMEND THE

JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED R. CIV. P.

59(E) AND ARGUMENT THEREON

Hearing Date: March 7, 2006

Hearing Time: 1:00 PM

Courtroom: 3

The Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong

Case 4:03-cv-02549-SBA Document 557 Filed 03/16/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

242

2 [PROPOSED] ORDER SUSTAINING PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY

OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS OF GREGORY L. LUCAS, ROBERT

MORGENSEN AND MARK FRATER

CASE NO. CV 03-02549 SBA

This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff’s EVIDENTIARY Objections To The

Declarations Of Gregory L. Lucas, Robert Morgensen, And Mark Frater In Support Of R.E.

Service Co. Inc.’s Opposition To Nikko’s Motion To Correct The Judgment Pursuant To Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(a) Or In The Alternative To Alter Or Amend The Judgment Pursuant To Fed R. Civ.

P. 59(e) And Argument Thereon.

The Court, having considered the pleadings and papers on file, HEREBY

ORDERS that Nikko’s objections are SUSTAINED as follows:

1. The declarations of Gregory L. Lucas, Robert Morgensen, and Mark Frater, and

argument thereon, are inadmissible in their entirety as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial under

Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 403.

RES’ position in its Opposition fails to recognize that Nikko’s motion merely seeks to

correct a technical error by the Court in rendering a Judgment (Docket 528, entered 1/17/06) to

reflect that a permanent injunction was granted by the Court in its Order (Docket 532, enter

1/12/06). The declarations submitted by RES to support its argument that a permanent

injunction is no longer necessary are wholly irrelevant to the issue raised in Nikko’s motion. 

Indeed, as recognized in the Court Order entered on January 12, 2006 (Docket 532), the Court

already granted Nikko a permanent injunction. Thus, RES’ declarations and the argument

thereon are excluded as irrelevant under Fed R. Evid. R. 401.

Moreover, even if deemed relevant by the Court, the declarations submitted by RES in

support of its Opposition are more prejudicial than probative as they contain only the selfserving statements of interested parties without any substantive evidence to rely on. The

declarations of Gregory L. Lucas, Robert Morgensen, and Mark Frater include broad statements

about the state of the printed circuit board (“PCB”) industry yet fail to disclose any substantive

Case 4:03-cv-02549-SBA Document 557 Filed 03/16/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

242

3 [PROPOSED] ORDER SUSTAINING PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY

OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS OF GREGORY L. LUCAS, ROBERT

MORGENSEN AND MARK FRATER

CASE NO. CV 03-02549 SBA

documents to support their analyses. For this reason, the declarations submitted by RES are also

excluded under Fed. R. Evid. R. 403 as being unduly prejudicial and lacking in probative value.

2. The declarations of Gregory L. Lucas, Robert Morgensen, and Mark Frater, and

argument thereon, are inadmissible in their entirety under Fed. R. Evid. 602 because the

declarations do not contain evidence sufficient to support a finding that the declarants have

personal knowledge of the matters stated in their declarations.

3. The declarations of Gregory L. Lucas and Robert Morgensen in their entirety, and

¶¶ 2-8 of the declaration of Mark Frater, and argument thereon, are excluded as inadmissible

hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. R. 802.

Neither Gregory L. Lucas nor Robert Morgensen testified at trial, and Mark Frater never

testified at trial or at a hearing to the truth of the matter asserted in ¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in his

declaration. Thus, the declarations of Gregory L. Lucas and Robert Morgensen in their entirety,

and ¶¶ 2-8 of the declaration of Mark Frater, and argument thereon, are excluded as inadmissible

hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. R. 802.

4. The declarations of Gregory L. Lucas and Robert Morgensen, and any argument

thereon, are excluded in their entirety as containing improper expert opinions.

Neither Gregory L. Lucas nor Robert Morgensen was disclosed under Fed. R. Civ. P. R.

26(a)(2), and they are lay witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. R. 701. Yet the substance of their

declarations relies on expert opinions regarding, among other things, the state of the PCB

industry and how the industry as a whole will benefit by the continued manufacture and sale of

RES’ SC3 product. These statements fall outside the scope of lay witness opinions under Fed. R.

Evid. R. 701. 

Case 4:03-cv-02549-SBA Document 557 Filed 03/16/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

242

4 [PROPOSED] ORDER SUSTAINING PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY

OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS OF GREGORY L. LUCAS, ROBERT

MORGENSEN AND MARK FRATER

CASE NO. CV 03-02549 SBA

Beyond this procedural objection, neither Gregory L. Lucas nor Robert Morgensen have

provided sufficient bases for their opinions. Fed. R. Evid. R. 702 requires that there be

“sufficient facts and data” to support an expert opinion. However, neither Gregory L. Lucas nor

Robert Morgensen have provided any documentation or other evidence to support their sweeping

statements regarding the PCB industry or its need for continued production of SC3. 

For these reasons, the declarations of Gregory L. Lucas and Robert Morgensen, and any

argument thereon, are excluded in their entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3-16-06 ___________________________________________

The Honorable SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge 

Case 4:03-cv-02549-SBA Document 557 Filed 03/16/06 Page 4 of 4