Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00684/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00684-4/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

24

25

26

27

28

1 06cv0684

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and MULTIMEDIA PATENT TRUST,Civil No. 06cv0684-H (CAB)

Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO STRIKE

[Doc. No. 394]

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant.

And related counterclaim.

On March 5, 2008, Multimedia Patent Trust (“MPT”) and Lucent filed a Motion to Strike

Microsoft’s Fifth Supplemental Initial Disclosures and the Fifth Supplemental Expert Report of

Dr. Adam Porter. [Doc. No. 394.] Microsoft filed an opposition to the motion on March 7, 2008. 

[Doc. No. 402.] MPT and Lucent filed a reply on March 9, 2008. [Doc. No. 403.] The matter

was referred to the undersigned, and the Court heard argument on the motion on March 17, 2008. 

Todd Friedman, Esq., Karen Robinson, Esq., and Jonas McDavit, Esq., appeared for MPT. Lisa

Kelly, Esq., appeared for Lucent. Chris Marchese, Esq., Shekhar Vyas, Esq., and Ray Scott, Esq.,

appeared for Microsoft. Having consider the submissions of the parties and the arguments of

counsel, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-00684-H-CAB Document 487 Filed 03/18/08 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

24

25

26

27

28 1

 The identified translators are Kathleen Krapfl, Alice Kin and Donald W. Hanley.

2 06cv0684

A. Microsoft’s Fifth Supplemental Initial Disclosure

Microsoft’s Fifth Supplemental Initial Disclosure was served on February 27, 2008. 

Microsoft identifies four witnesses in this supplemental disclosure whom MPT and Lucent

contend were previously unknown to them or were not identified during discovery as potential

witnesses in this case. Discovery closed on February 1, 2008. MPT and Lucent claim prejudice by

this late disclosure of these individuals and move to preclude them from offering testimony at trial.

Three of these potential witnesses1 provided translations of Japanese art relied upon by

Microsoft’s expert Dr. Jerry Gibson regarding the validity of the ‘878 patent. MPT and Lucent

acknowledge that the translated references and the certificates identifying the translators were

provided “before the discovery deadline passed.” (Mot. to Strike at 2, n.3.) The translators were,

therefore, not unknown to MPT and Lucent prior to the close of discovery and could have been

subpoenaed if the accuracy of their translations is a matter of concern. Microsoft’s inclusion of

these individuals as potential witnesses, should the accuracy of their translations be raised as an

issue, has not prejudiced MPT or Lucent. The motion to strike them is DENIED.

The forth individual, Mr. Barry Steinglass, was deposed by Lucent in June 2006, during

prior litigation between these parties when he was an employee of Microsoft. In October 2007,

MPT and Lucent sought to depose Mr. Steinglass with regard to the current litigation. Microsoft

responded that Mr. Steinglass was no longer employed by it, that he left shortly after his first

deposition and would have no new information to offer regarding the subject of his first

deposition, Xbox Codecs. Microsoft, therefore, took the position that it would be unduly

burdensome to recall this non-party for deposition, refused to provide him and offered an

alternative witness. Furthermore, Microsoft did not include Mr. Steinglass as a witness on its

initial disclosures or the four supplemental disclosures that followed. MPT and Lucent, therefore,

elected not to pursue any further deposition of Mr. Steinglass, through Microsoft or by

subpoenaing him directly.

///

Case 3:06-cv-00684-H-CAB Document 487 Filed 03/18/08 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

24

25

26

27

28

3 06cv0684

Microsoft finally identified Mr. Steinglass as a witness in its fifth supplemental initial

disclosure. Mr. Steinglass then appeared as a potential fact witness regarding Xbox 360 sales,

marketing and technology. MPT and Lucent now move to preclude Mr. Steinglass from testifying

in person, because he was not previously identified as a potential witness and not made available

for deposition. MPT and Lucent, however, identified deposition testimony given by Mr.

Steinglass in the former case, as testimony they may seek to enter at trial in this case.

MPT and Lucent’s motion to preclude Mr. Steinglass from testifying at trial is GRANTED

in part and DENIED in part. Mr. Steinglass provided testimony in the former litigation about

Xbox technology. Microsoft represented to MPT and Lucent that Mr. Steinglass would have

nothing new to offer that had not been the subject of his first deposition. Microsoft’s recent

identification of Mr. Steinglass as a witness on subjects not covered by his first deposition is

therefore untimely and prejudicial to MPT and Lucent. Mr. Steinglass cannot testify with regard to

topics not covered in his deposition.

MPT and Lucent indicated that they intend to offer portions of the deposition of Mr.

Steinglass at trial. If MPT and Lucent introduce testimony from Mr. Steinglass in their case,

unless the trial court orders otherwise, Microsoft is not precluded from having Mr. Steinglass

appear in person to testify within the scope of the offered deposition testimony. With that

limitation, the motion to preclude Mr. Steinglass from testifying at trial on the subjects of his

former deposition is DENIED.

B. Fifth Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. Adam Porter

On February 29, 2008, Microsoft served the Fifth Supplemental Expert Report of Dr.

Adam Porter. Lucent objects to this fifth supplement as untimely and advancing a new theory of

infringement not previously disclosed. Microsoft counters that the supplement is the result of a

deposition of IBM taken pursuant to a timely served subpoena. Dr. Porter’s supplement opines on

IBM’s use of Vital Suite.

The motion to exclude the Fifth Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. Porter is DENIED. 

Microsoft will make Dr. Porter available for deposition on the supplemental opinions presented in

his fifth report. Lucent’s expert may serve a supplemental rebuttal report to the opinions presented

Case 3:06-cv-00684-H-CAB Document 487 Filed 03/18/08 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

24

25

26

27

28

4 06cv0684

in Dr. Porter’s fifth expert report and, if requested, will make the rebuttal expert available for

deposition on his rebuttal opinions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 18, 2008

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00684-H-CAB Document 487 Filed 03/18/08 Page 4 of 4