Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_00-cv-20905/USCOURTS-cand-5_00-cv-20905-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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

ORDER ON RAMBUS INC.'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO PRECLUDE HYNIX FROM CALLING NONDISCLOSED

WITNESSES

C-00-20905 RMW

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX

SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC.,

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR

DEUTSCHLAND GmbH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RAMBUS INC.,

Defendant.

No. CV-00-20905 RMW

ORDER ON RAMBUS'S MOTION IN

LIMINE NO. 7 TO PRECLUDE HYNIX

FROM CALLING NONDISCLOSED

WITNESSES

Re Docket No. 2283

Rambus moves in limine for an order precluding Hynix from calling at Phase III of the trial

witnesses whose names were not timely listed as witnesses. The nondisclosed witnesses that

Rambus identifies are H.J. Oh, Abid Ahmad, Charles Donohoe, Richard Heye, Young Park and J.H.

Ahn. The court has reviewed the parties' submissions and considered the arguments of counsel. The

court orders that none of the witnesses named can be called in Hynix's case-in-chief. The witnesses

may be called in rebuttal if a showing is made outside the presence of the jury that the witnesses are

true "rebuttal" witnesses. The court makes no ruling as to other nondisclosed witnesses, if any, that

Hynix intends to call, except to order that no such witness be called without prior court

authorization.

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 2408 Filed 09/05/06 Page 1 of 5
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

ORDER ON RAMBUS INC.'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO PRECLUDE HYNIX FROM CALLING NONDISCLOSED

WITNESSES

C-00-20905 RMW 2

I. ANALYSIS

A. Ahmad, Donohoe, Heye, and Oh

Rambus argues that Hynix has indicated it intends to call Ahmad to testify "regarding

Camino chipsets," Donohoe to testify regarding "Rambus's license practices and attempts to capture

the JEDEC standard," Heye to testify regarding the "lock-in resultant from investments in JEDEC

SDRAM standards," and Oh to testify of "Hynix's understanding of Rambus." Rambus contends

that none of these individuals was disclosed in Hynix's initial disclosures or supplements thereto. As

a result, Rambus argues, none has been deposed by Rambus. 

1. Ahmad Not To Be Called

The motion is moot as to Ahmad because he is no longer available for trial. 

2. Donohoe Only To Be Called in Rebuttal

Hynix argues that Donohoe will be used only as rebuttal witness and that Hynix was

substantially justified in not disclosing his name because it could not have anticipated Rambus's

arguments. Donohoe was apparently Karp's superior at Samsung and would be called to rebut any

testimony by Karp of his understanding regarding Rambus's technology while he was employed at

Samsung. Hynix also suggests that the nondisclosure of Donohoe is harmless in any event because

Donohoe gave depositions "in cases in which Rambus is a party," namely, the Micron litigation in

2001 and the spoliation phase of this action. Since Hynix only intends to call Donohoe as a rebuttal

witness, the disclosure issue is moot. 

3. Heye Cannot Be Called in Hynix's Case-in-Chief

Hynix intends to call Heye in its case-in-chief and argues that the nondisclosure of Heye as a

witness is harmless mainly because Heye and the subject of his testimony (industry lock-in to the

established JEDEC DRAM standard) are well-known to Rambus as "lock-in" was an issue in both

Micron and the FTC proceedings. Rambus apparently deposed Heye in the FTC proceeding

including about lock-in issues and the difficulties involved in adopting alternatives to JEDECstandard DRAMs. Thus, Hynix argues that Heye's testimony would not be a surprise to Rambus

given Rambus's in-depth knowledge of Heye. Although Rambus may have a fairly good

understanding of what Heye would say, Hynix has no legitimate excuse for not disclosing him

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 2408 Filed 09/05/06 Page 2 of 5
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

ORDER ON RAMBUS INC.'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO PRECLUDE HYNIX FROM CALLING NONDISCLOSED

WITNESSES

C-00-20905 RMW 3

earlier, particularly since the subject matter of his proposed testimony is significant. Rambus had a

right to rely on Hynix's witness disclosures and should not have to prepare for and address evidence

on a critical subject from an undisclosed witness. Therefore, Hynix may not call Heye in its case-inchief. Heye may, however, qualify as a rebuttal witness on some subjects. This can be judged after

Rambus completes its case-in-chief. 

4. Oh Is Only a Rebuttal Witness

Hynix intends to call Oh as a witness only because Rambus has marked at least one of Oh's

emails as a potential trial exhibit. Thus, Hynix seeks to call Oh only to rebut any effort by Rambus

to "mischaracterize or misconstrue" any Oh email introduced at trial. 

B. Park Not To Be Called

Park is no longer available so the motion as to him is moot.

C. Ahn Is Only a Rebuttal Witness

Hynix seeks to use Ahn as a witness only in rebuttal as a "percipient witness that can respond

to specific cost issues raised by Geilhufe," Rambus's expert. Therefore, the motion as to him

appears moot. Hynix does note that Ahn's name was included in the list of 550 JEDEC attendees

attached to Hynix's initial disclosures. That is not the type of disclosure that satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P.

26. 

However, he will be allowed to testify in rebuttal only if he is a true "rebuttal" witness. 

D. Definition of Rebuttal Witness

A "rebuttal" witness is one who offers evidence only to counter new facts presented in the

defendant's case-in-chief. A party may not use rebuttal as an attempt to introduce evidence that it

should have introduced in its case-in-chief. A rebuttal witness contradicts or attempts to contradict

evidence offered by the adverse party. See BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (8th ed. 2004).

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 2408 Filed 09/05/06 Page 3 of 5
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

ORDER ON RAMBUS INC.'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO PRECLUDE HYNIX FROM CALLING NONDISCLOSED

WITNESSES

C-00-20905 RMW 4

II. ORDER

None of the identified, nondisclosed witnesses may be called in Hynix's case-in-chief. The

nondisclosed witness may be called in rebuttal if a showing is made outside the presence of the jury

that the witness is truly only a "rebuttal" witness. Neither party may call any other undisclosed

witness without prior court permission.

DATED: 9/5/06 

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 2408 Filed 09/05/06 Page 4 of 5
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

ORDER ON RAMBUS INC.'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 TO PRECLUDE HYNIX FROM CALLING NONDISCLOSED

WITNESSES

C-00-20905 RMW 5

Counsel for Hynix:

Allen Ruby

125 South Market Street, Suite 1001

San Jose, California 95113-2285

Patrick Lynch

O'Melveny & Myers

400 So Hope St Ste 1060

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899

Kenneth L. Nissly

Susan van Keulen

Geoffrey H. Yost

Thelen Reid & Priest LLP

225 West Santa Clara Street, 12th Floor

San Jose, CA 95113-1723

Counsel for defendant:

Gregory Stone

Kelly M. Klaus

Steven M. Perry

Munger Tolles & Olson

355 So Grand Ave Ste 3500

Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560

Peter A. Detre

Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke

Munger Tolles & Olson

560 Mission Street, 27th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105-2907

Peter I Ostroff

Rollin A. Ransom 

Michelle B. Goodman

V. Bryan Medlock, Jr.

Sidley Austin Brown & Wood

555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000

Los Angeles, CA 90013-1010

Jeannine Yoo Sano

Pierre J. Hubert

Dewey Ballantine

1950 University Avenue, Suite 500

East Palo Alto, CA 94303

Date: 9/5/06 SPT

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 2408 Filed 09/05/06 Page 5 of 5