Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02306/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02306-38/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACIFIC INFORMATION

RESOURCES, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

DIANA MUSSELMAN, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-2306 MMC (BZ)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM FILING DELAY AND

MOTION TO STRIKE

Before the court are two related motions. Defendants

Peter Dunbar, Renee Dunbar, Paretologic Inc., Elton Pereira,

Adrian Pereira and Jason Carvalho (collectively Dunbar) have

moved to strike two rebuttal reports of Prof. Hadas and

plaintiff has moved for retroactive leave to permit the

rebuttal reports to be filed one day late. Having reviewed

the papers thusfar submitted on both motions, the court finds

no need for further briefing or for argument. IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff has shown good cause to be relieved from

its late filing on January 29, 2008. The reports were filed

Case 3:06-cv-02306-MMC Document 267 Filed 03/28/08 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 To the extent Prof. Hadas’ declaration is

inconsistent with his deposition testimony, I have given his

testimony greater weight.

2

47 minutes late. That delay was apparently caused by a

combination of problems with the court’s electronic case

filing system and delays in communicating with Prof. Hadas who

was in Australia. Accordingly, the court deems the reports as

having been timely filed. 

2. The Dunbar motion to strike the rebuttal reports is

GRANTED. The court has read both reports and does not

consider them proper rebuttal. The reports are very similar;

each applies the same analytical method to a different

website. Even assuming that plaintiff could have filed a

report to rebut the information contained in Mr. Dunbar’s

summary judgment declaration, I could find nothing in the

rebuttal reports that specifically rebuts or contradicts any

of Mr. Dunbar’s assertions. This is not surprising since

Prof. Hadas admitted in deposition he has no recollection of

ever seeing Mr. Dunbar’s declaration.1

 Hadas Dep. at p.125,

lns. 3-5.2

 Instead the reports appear to restate the opinions

and conclusions Prof. Hadas’ reached in his August 8, 2006

report but supported by a new methodology. This is confirmed

by his testimony that he and his assistant developed a new

method of analyzing the facts in dispute, informed Mr. Trope

and issued these reports in response to a request by Mr. Trope

for further analysis. Id. at p. 137, lns. 1-21. While it is

not clear from the transcript exactly when this new analysis

Case 3:06-cv-02306-MMC Document 267 Filed 03/28/08 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

was conducted, it appears to have been after January 2, 2008. 

Id. at p.133, lns. 1-23. 

More specifically, plaintiff asserts that Prof. Hadas is

rebutting statements made by Mr. Dunbar in paragraphs 26 - 28

of his declaration. See Opp’n. Mem. at p.3, lns. 22-25; Trope

Dec. at ¶4. In his declaration, Mr. Dunbar explains that

prior to this litigation he was unaware of any of the methods

of concealing URLs outlined by Prof. Hadas, and in visiting

websites, he never circumvented any security system. Nothing

in either Hadas report speaks to these specific assertions

except in the general sense that Prof. Hadas opines that

defendants must have copied material from plaintiff’s website. 

This too is not surprising since Mr. Dunbar’s assertions are

more factual than they are scientific. In his declaration in

opposition to the Dunbar motion to strike, Prof. Hadas admits

that the rebuttal reports were created as part of his effort

to “expand and supplement my conclusions by refining and/or

improving the analytical models I employed . . . I have not

focused or paid any attention as to whether I was writing a

Supplemental Report or a Rebuttal Report.” Hadas Dec. at ¶11. 

While this may be commendable from a scientific perspective,

it does not comport with the disclosure requirements in the

Federal Rules and Judge Chesney’s order requiring experts to

be disclosed by December 28, 2007.

Plaintiff has offered no explanation for why Prof. Hadas

did not do his work earlier or why his work could not have

been disclosed in timely fashion on December 28, 2007. Had

his new analysis been disclosed on time, the Dunbar defendants

Case 3:06-cv-02306-MMC Document 267 Filed 03/28/08 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

would have had an opportunity to address it by January 28, 

2008. For the forgoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the motion

to strike the rebuttal reports of Prof. Hadas is GRANTED. 

Dated: March 28, 2008

 Bernard Zimmerman

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\PACIFIC INFORMATION\ORDER RE MOTION TO STRIKE.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-02306-MMC Document 267 Filed 03/28/08 Page 4 of 4