Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07067/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07067-98/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MMCA GROUP, LTD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C-06-7067 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART HP’S MOTION TO

EXCLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF

PLAINTIFF MMCA GROUP LTD’S

DAMAGES EXPERT, RANDY

SUGARMAN

Before the Court is defendant Hewlett-Packard Company’s (“HP”) “Motion to

Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff MMCA Group, LTD.’s Damages Expert, Randy

Sugarman [“Sugarman”],” filed January 15, 2010, in which defendant PICA Corp. (“PICA”)

has joined. Plaintiff MMCA Group, LTD. (“MMCA”), has filed opposition to the motion as

well as to PICA’s joinder thereto; HP and PICA have filed separate replies. The matter

came on regularly for hearing on February 12, 2010. Samuel Liversidge of Gibson, Dunn &

Crutcher, LLP and William Abrams of Bingham McCutchen, LLP appeared on behalf of HP. 

Frederick Geonetta and Kenneth Frucht of Geonetta & Frucht, LLP appeared on behalf of

MMCA. Gregory H. Melick of Luper Neidenthal & Logan appeared on behalf of PICA.

Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motions, as

well as the arguments of counsel, and for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing,

the Court rules as follows:

1. To the extent HP seeks to exclude Sugarman’s expert testimony on the subject of

Case 3:06-cv-07067-MMC Document 846 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 2
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

HP’s unjust enrichment, the motion is hereby GRANTED,

2. To the extent PICA seeks to exclude Sugarman’s expert testimony on the subject

of PICA’s unjust enrichment, the motion is hereby DENIED;

3. To the extent HP and PICA seek to exclude Sugarman’s expert testimony on the

subject of MMCA’s lost profits, the motion is hereby DENIED, with the exception that both

defendants are granted a protective order as to any method of valuation not contained in

Sugarman’s expert report. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Dated: February 12, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07067-MMC Document 846 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of 2