Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00385/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00385-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1 

3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FASTVDO LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

AT&T MOBILITY LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

 Consolidated Case No.: 3:16-cv-00385-

H-WVG 

LEAD CASE 

Member Cases: 

3:16-cv-00386-H-WVG 

3:16-cv-00390-H-WVG 

3:16-cv-00394-H-WVG 

3:16-cv-00395-H-WVG 

3:16-cv-00396-H-WVG 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE 

[Doc. No. 213.] 

 On December 19, 2016, Defendant Samsung1

 filed a motion to strike the first 

supplemental expert report of Dr. Oded Gottesman pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 37(c). (Doc. No. 213.) On December 20, 2016, the Court held an initial 

telephonic hearing on the motion to strike. (Doc. No. 216.) Philip Wang appeared for 

Plaintiff FastVDO LLC. John E. Nilsson appeared for Defendant Samsung. On December 

23, 2016, FastVDO filed its response in opposition to Samsung’s motion to strike. (Doc. 

                                                      

1

 Defendant “Samsung” is comprised of Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung 

Electronics Co., Ltd. 

Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 224 Filed 12/28/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG 

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

No. 220.) For the reasons below, the Court denies Samsung’s motion to strike. 

 On April 5, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling order for the consolidated action 

setting forth a deadline of November 14, 2016 for the exchange of opening expert reports. 

(Doc. No. 125 at 13.) On November 14, 2016, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion 

for an extension of certain deadlines in the scheduling order and set November 30, 2016 as 

the new deadline for the exchange of opening expert reports. (Doc. No. 207.) 

 On November 30, 2016, FastVDO served Samsung with the Opening Expert Report 

of Dr. Oded Gottsman regarding Samsung’s infringement. (Doc. No. 213-2, Lee Decl. ¶ 

10, Ex. 8.) On December 10, 2016, FastVDO served Samsung with the First Supplemental 

Expert Report of Dr. Oded Gottsman regarding Samsung’s infringement. (Doc. No. 213-

2, Lee Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. 11.) By the present motion, Samsung moves to strike Dr. Gottsman’s 

First Supplemental Expert Report pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c) on the 

grounds that it was served after the deadline for opening expert reports had passed. (Doc. 

No. 213-1 at 4-7.) 

 “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) requires the parties to disclose the 

identity of each expert witness ‘accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by 

the witness.’” Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th 

Cir. 2001) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)). Rule 26(a)(2)(D) further provides that “[a] party 

must make these disclosures at the times and in the sequence that the court orders.” “Rule 

37(c)(1) gives teeth to these requirements by forbidding the use at trial of any information 

required to be disclosed by Rule 26(a) that is not properly disclosed.” Id. “Exclusion of an 

expert witness report is an appropriate remedy for failing to fulfill the required disclosure 

requirements of Rule 26(a).” Zest IP Holdings, LLC v. Implant Direct Mfg., No. CIV. 10-

0541-GPC WVG, 2013 WL 6686809, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2013); see also Yeti by 

Molly, 259 F.3d at 1106 (explaining that Rule 37(c)(1) is “ a ‘self-executing,’ ‘automatic’ 

sanction”). 

 Nevertheless, under Rule 37(c)(1), “[t]he information may be introduced if the 

parties’ failure to disclose the required information is substantially justified or harmless.” 

Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 224 Filed 12/28/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG 

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

Yeti by Molly, 259 F.3d at 1106. The party facing sanctions bears to burden of proving 

substantial justification or harmlessness. See id. Further, a district court has “particularly 

wide latitude” in determining whether to issue sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1). Id. 

 Samsung argues that the Court should strike the supplemental expert report pursuant 

to Rule 37(c)(1) because it was served 10 days after the deadline for opening expert reports, 

and FastVDO has failed to provide a sufficient justification for the untimely report. (Doc. 

No. 213-1 at 1, 4-6.) In response, FastVDO argues that its service of the supplemental 

expert report on December 10, 2016 was substantially justified because FastVDO only 

received the relevant Qualcomm source code on December 7, 2016, and its service of the 

report was harmless because Samsung has suffered no prejudice. (Doc. No. 220 at 1, 5-8.) 

 After reviewing the parties’ arguments and the record, the Court concludes that 

FastVDO has provided sufficient justification for serving the supplemental expert report 

on December 10, 2016. FastVDO only received the relevant Qualcomm source code on 

December 7, 2016, and it was able to supplement Dr. Gottesman’s expert report with the 

source code and provide it to Samsung within three days. (Doc. No. 220-1, Wang Decl. ¶¶ 

16, 22, Exs. 12, 15.) Further, the Court rejects Samsung’s contention that FastVDO was 

not diligent in seeking Qualcomm’s source code. This Court has previously recognized 

“the difficulty in obtaining third-party discovery, in particular source code which is heavily 

protected by companies.” Multimedia Patent Trust v. Apple Inc., No. 10-CV-2618-H KSC, 

2012 WL 4547449, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012). 

 In addition, the Court concludes that FastVDO’s service of the supplemental expert 

report was harmless, particularly in light of the fact that the Court granted Samsung a 13-

day extension of the deadline for Samsung to serve its rebuttal expert report on 

infringement.2

 (See Doc. No. 216.) Further, the supplemental expert report was served in 

advance of the scheduling of expert depositions, (Doc. No. 220 at 7), and well in advance 

                                                      

2

 Indeed, in its motion, the only prejudice identified by Samsung in its motion is having a 

shortened time period to analyze and respond to the supplemental report. (Doc. No. 213-1 at 6.) The 

Court alleviated this issue by granting the 13-day extension of time for service of the rebuttal report. 

Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 224 Filed 12/28/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG 

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

of the deadlines for the parties to file their motions for summary judgment and Daubert 

motions. Accordingly, the Court, exercising its sound discretion, declines to strike the 

supplemental expert report and denies Samsung’s motion to strike.3

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 28, 2016 

 

 MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

                                                      

3

 Although the Court declines to strike the expert report on the grounds that it is untimely, the 

Court reminds the parties that they must comply with the deadlines set forth in the Court’s scheduling 

orders. 

Case 3:16-cv-00385-H-WVG Document 224 Filed 12/28/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4