Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01958/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01958-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

05cv1958-B (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

v.

BROADCOM CORPORATION,

Defendant. 

BROADCOM CORPORATION,

Counterclaimant,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Counterdefendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05cv1958-B (BLM)

ORDER DENYING BROADCOM’S MOTION

TO STRIKE THE FIRST

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF

IAIN RICHARDSON REGARDING

BROADCOM’S INFRINGEMENT OF U.S.

PATENT NOS. 5,576,767 AND

5,452,104 AND TO PRECLUDE

TESTIMONY REGARDING THE

OPINIONS OFFERED THEREIN

[DOC. NO. 172]

This matter is before the Court on Broadcom Corporation’s

(“Broadcom”) Motion to Strike the First Supplemental Declaration of Iain

Richardson Regarding Broadcom’s Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.

5,576,767 and 5,452,104 and to Preclude Testimony Regarding the Opinions

Offered Therein. Doc. No. 172. Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”)

timely opposed Broadcom’s motion on November 29, 2006, and Broadcom

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 387 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 9
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

-2- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

filed its reply on December 1, 2006. The Court took the motion under

submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). Doc. No. 171.

Based on the Court’s review of the briefing and all supporting

documents submitted, and for the reasons set forth more fully below,

Broadcom’s Motion to Strike the First Supplemental Declaration of Iain

Richardson Regarding Broadcom’s Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.

5,576,767 and 5,452,104 and to Preclude Testimony Regarding the Opinions

Offered Therein is DENIED. Doc. No. 172.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C) directs each party to

disclose its expert opinion reports “at the times and in the sequence

directed by the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C). Rule 26(e)(1)

provides guidance for the filing of supplemental expert reports,

mandating supplementation at appropriate intervals “to include

information thereafter acquired if ordered by the court,” or

if the party learns that in some material respect the

information disclosed is incomplete or incorrect and if the

additional or corrective information has not otherwise been

made known to the other parties during the discovery process

or in writing. With respect to testimony of an expert from

whom a report is required under subdivision (a)(2)(B) the

duty extends both to information contained in the report and

to information provided through a deposition of the expert,

and any additions or other changes to this information shall

be disclosed by the time the party’s disclosures under Rule

26(a)(3) are due.

Id.

In the event that a party fails to comply with the expert

disclosure deadlines articulated in Rule 26, Rule 37 endows district

courts with broad discretion to impose sanctions as a remedy. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1); see also Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor

Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that district courts

are given “particularly wide latitude” to impose sanctions under Rule

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 387 Filed 12/14/06 Page 2 of 9
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 Court later extended the deadline to disclose opening expert reports to

August 10, 2006. See Doc. No. 90 at ¶ 1.

-3- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

37(c)(1)). Rule 37 provides, in relevant part,

[a] party that without substantial justification fails to

disclose information required by Rule 26(a) or 26(e)(1), or

to amend a prior response to discovery as required by Rule

26(e)(2), is not, unless such failure is harmless, permitted

to use as evidence at a trial, at a hearing, or on a motion

any witness or information not so disclosed.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). Although Rule 37(c)(1) is characterized as

“self-executing” and “automatic,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) Advisory

Committee’s Note (1993), the Ninth Circuit has identified two express

exceptions to ameliorate the Rule’s harshness: “[t]he information may

be introduced if the parties’ failure to disclose the required

information is substantially justified or harmless.” Yeti by Molly, 259

F.3d at 1106. The party facing sanctions bears the burden of proof on

these issues. Id. at 1107; see also Wilson v. Bradlees of New England,

Inc., 250 F.3d 10, 21 (1st Cir. 2001) (explaining that “it is the

obligation of the party facing sanctions for belated disclosure to show

that its failure to comply with the Rule was either justified or

harmless and therefore deserving of some lesser sanction”).

BACKGROUND

On February 15, 2006, the Court issued a scheduling order requiring

the parties to serve Rule 26(a)(2) expert disclosures on or before

August 4, 2006,1

 and to disclose any contradictory or rebuttal

information on or before September 1, 2006. Doc. No. 54 at ¶ 5. In

accordance with the Court’s directive, Qualcomm produced to Broadcom the

Declaration of Dr. Iain Richardson Regarding Broadcom’s Infringement of

U.S. Patent Nos. 5,576,767 and 5,452,104 (the “Opening Report”). See

Waugh Decl. Ex. 16. While Dr. Richardson analyzed a variety of

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 387 Filed 12/14/06 Page 3 of 9
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- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

infringement claims in his Opening Report, he expressly “reserved the

right to submit a supplemental declaration addressing the entirety of

Broadcom’s accused products and related versions of hardware, software,

and firmware.” Id. at ¶ 18.

Save for some narrowly tailored, specific exceptions not applicable

here, all discovery closed in this case on September 29, 2006. See Doc.

No. 54 at ¶ 6. On November 10, 2006, without either seeking or

obtaining from the Court permission to submit a post-deadline,

supplemental expert report, Qualcomm produced to Broadcom the First

Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Iain Richardson Regarding Broadcom’s

Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,576,767 and 5,452,104 (the

“Supplemental Report”) currently in dispute. See Waugh Decl. Ex. 25.

On November 27, 2006, Qualcomm offered to make Dr. Richardson available

for an additional day of deposition questioning on the subject of the

Supplemental Report. See id. Ex. 29. Broadcom declined Qualcomm’s

offer, opting instead to await the Court’s resolution of the instant

motion. See id. Ex. 32.

DISCUSSION

Broadcom argues Qualcomm’s November 10, 2006 disclosure of the

Supplemental Report is untimely, improper, and prejudicial. Def’s Mem.

at 6-12. Emphasizing that Qualcomm served the Supplemental Report three

months after the expert disclosure deadline, six weeks after the

discovery cutoff date, and less than two weeks prior to the date on

which pretrial disclosures were due, Broadcom characterizes the

Supplemental Report as undeniably untimely. Id. at 1, 4. Broadcom also

alleges the Supplemental Report relies primarily on information produced

well in advance of the expert discovery deadline, and as such, claims

Qualcomm can offer no tenable explanation for the report’s delay. Id.

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 387 Filed 12/14/06 Page 4 of 9
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

2 In particular, Broadcom maintains the Supplemental Report is in direct

violation of (1) the Court’s August 4, 2006 Order requiring all expert disclosures to

be filed on or before August 10, 2006, see Doc. No. 90, (2) the Court’s August 11, 2006

Order denying Qualcomm’s request to modify discovery deadlines, see Doc. No. 91, and

(3) to the extent that the Supplemental Report accuses Broadcom’s FGPA boards of

infringement, Judge Brewster’s November 3, 2006 bench ruling prohibiting discovery of

information with respect to products not “taped out” prior to trial. See also Doc. No.

230 (order memorializing Judge Brewster’s November 3, 2006 ruling).

-5- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

at 6-7. Next, Broadcom declares the Supplemental Report runs afoul of

at least three court orders,2 asserts theories of infringement never

before disclosed to Broadcom, and attempts to introduce rebuttal

opinions directed to Broadcom’s pending motions for summary judgment.

Id. at 2, 7-12. Finally, Broadcom insists it will suffer severe

prejudice should Qualcomm be permitted to rely upon the opinions

contained in the Supplemental Report, underlining that it will be forced

to devote its valuable trial preparation time to the analysis and

rebuttal of the Supplemental Report’s new infringement theories. Id.

at 8-12. For all these reasons, Broadcom requests that the Court not

only strike the Supplemental Report, but also preclude Qualcomm from

offering testimony or other evidence based on the opinions contained

therein in support of any motion, at any hearing, or at trial. Id. at

2, 12.

Qualcomm argues that having been served prior to the pretrial

disclosures deadline, the Supplemental Report was timely provided under

the specific requirements of Federal Rule 26(e)(1). Plf’s Opp. at 5-9.

Qualcomm also argues that any delay in the Supplemental Report’s

preparation and service is attributable to Broadcom, noting that

Broadcom’s alleged failure to provide complete, uncorrupted versions of

its source code until after the deadline for initial expert disclosures

prevented Dr. Richardson from including any analysis of or opinions

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 387 Filed 12/14/06 Page 5 of 9
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 Not surprisingly, Broadcom disputes any claim by Qualcomm that it failed to

satisfy its discovery obligations in a timely manner. Def’s Reply at 2-3.

4 The Court notes that any motion regarding the admission or exclusion of

evidence at trial is more properly addressed to the judge who will be presiding over

the trial.

-6- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

regarding that code in his Opening Report.3 Id. at 6, 10-12. Qualcomm

therefore asserts that Broadcom’s alleged failure to provide timely

discovery, coupled with the breadth and complexity of the after acquired

discovery, justifies the Supplemental Report’s November 10, 2006

disclosure. Id. Lastly, Qualcomm argues Broadcom cannot credibly claim

to have suffered prejudice because the Opening Report adequately

notified Broadcom of Qualcomm’s infringement theories and because

Broadcom has been offered the opportunity to re-depose Dr. Richardson.

Id. 14-16. Accordingly, Qualcomm asks that the Court deny Broadcom’s

motion. Id. at 16-17.

In this case, the Court finds it inappropriate both to strike the

Supplemental Report and to impose the preclusion sanctions Broadcom

requests.4 As an initial matter, Qualcomm and Dr. Richardson

unambiguously informed Broadcom that the Opening Report would require

supplementation with respect to infringement. See Waugh Decl. Exs. 5

(July 11, 2006 letter from Waugh to Saxton, informing counsel that

deficiencies in Broadcom’s source code production “will almost certainly

require” a supplemental expert report on infringement) and 16 (the

Opening Report, in which Dr. Richardson reserved the right to supplement

his opinions after additional discovery was produced). Thus, Broadcom

was aware the Supplemental Report would be forthcoming. In addition,

Qualcomm submitted the Supplemental Report prior to the November 20,

2006 pretrial disclosures deadline, or within the time expressly

allotted for such supplementation under the Federal Rules. See Fed. R.

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 387 Filed 12/14/06 Page 6 of 9
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

-7- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

Civ. P. 26(e)(1) (requiring that “any additions or other changes to

[expert reports] shall be disclosed by the time the party’s disclosures

under Rule 26(a)(3) are due”). Although the Court acknowledges that the

Supplemental Report was submitted after a number of significant pretrial

deadlines, the Court excuses Qualcomm’s tardiness due to the vast amount

of relevant discovery produced by both parties after the close of fact

and expert discovery. Indeed, the Court notes that in terms of

compliance with the strenuous discovery deadlines that have longgoverned this case, neither party is above reproach. Under these

circumstances, and because both parties contributed to the delay in the

completion and service of the Supplemental Report, the Court finds the

exclusionary sanctions Broadcom seeks inappropriate.

Moreover, the Court finds that the record belies Broadcom’s claims

of severe prejudice. First, to the extent that the Supplemental Report

espouses theories of infringement previously undisclosed to Broadcom in

any formal pleading, the Court considers it unlikely, after months of

intensive discovery and the disclosure of Dr. Richardson’s lengthy

Opening Report, that Broadcom has no knowledge or understanding of the

nature and specifics of Qualcomm’s infringement theories. Second, when

presented with the opportunity to re-depose Dr. Richardson on the

subject of his Supplemental Report, Broadcom chose not to do so,

foregoing the very discovery it now argues the Supplemental Report

necessitates. Third, Broadcom has had the Supplemental Report in its

possession since November 10, 2006, and thus presumably has reviewed and

analyzed the additional opinions set forth therein. Given these facts,

the Court finds Broadcom’s prejudice arguments to be without merit. See

Talbert v. City of Chicago, 236 F.R.D. 415, 421 (N.D. Ill. 2006)

(explaining that absent some greater harm to the report’s opponent,

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 387 Filed 12/14/06 Page 7 of 9
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

-8- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

sound discretion counsels that such supplemental reports be filed); see

also Mathers v. Northshore Mining Co., 217 F.R.D. 474, 483 (D. Minn.

2003) (finding no severe prejudice as a result of an untimely

supplemental report even though the report’s opponent relied on an

initial report in preparing for summary judgment).

In conclusion, the Court finds Broadcom’s requested exclusionary

sanctions to be inappropriate in this case. In so finding, the Court

makes neither an assessment of nor a ruling with regard to the

Supplemental Report’s admissibility at trial or in support of any

motion. This determination aside, the Court does find it appropriate

to allow Broadcom to re-depose Dr. Richardson regarding the additional

infringement opinions set forth in his Supplemental Report. Given the

rapidly approaching trial date, however, any such deposition must be

completed on or before December 31, 2006.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 387 Filed 12/14/06 Page 8 of 9
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

-9- 05cv1958-B (BLM)

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Broadcom’s Motion to Strike the First

Supplemental Declaration of Iain Richardson Regarding Broadcom’s

Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,576,767 and 5,452,104 and to Preclude

Testimony Regarding the Opinions Offered Therein is DENIED. Doc. No.

172. To the extent Broadcom chooses to re-depose Dr. Richardson on the

subject of his Supplemental Report, that deposition must be completed

on or before December 31, 2006. By December 18, 2006, Qualcomm is

ordered to provide Broadcom with three (3) days on which Dr. Richardson

is available to be deposed. Broadcom may then choose from those dates

the date of the deposition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2006

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO:

HONORABLE RUDI M. BREWSTER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-01958-B-BLM Document 387 Filed 12/14/06 Page 9 of 9