Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02118/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02118-14/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH MILLER,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES, et

al,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 02-2118 MJJ (MEJ)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART IBM'S MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is defendant International Business Machines Corporation's ("IBM")

Motion for Sanctions, filed March 16, 2006. Doc. #362. In its motion, IBM moves to preclude

plaintiff Ralph Miller from offering evidence on any of the matters for which he has failed to

comply with the Court's previous orders of November 30, 2005 and February 6, 2006. After

consideration of the parties' papers, oral arguments at the April 13, 2006 hearing, relevant legal

authority, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART

IBM's motion for the reasons set forth below.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Interrogatories and Document Requests

On November 28, 2005, the parties filed a joint discovery dispute letter in which defendant

International Business Machines ("IBM") requested a court order compelling plaintiff Ralph Miller

to respond to interrogatories and produce documents. Doc. #189. As to the interrogatories, IBM

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 422 Filed 04/14/06 Page 1 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

argued that Miller's responses were evasive and in some cases provided no answer at all. As to the

document requests, IBM argued that Miller had failed to produce: (1) documents relating to his

claim that Best-of-China.com ("BCC") assigned him its rights; (2) documents relating to the manner

in which BCC entered into the subscription agreement with IBM; and (3) documents supporting

each of Miller's factual contentions. IBM also argued that communications between Miller and

Victor Paddock were not protected by the attorney-client privilege because Mr. Paddock testified in

his deposition that he was not acting as a lawyer in giving BCC advice, and Miller knew that he had

not practiced as a lawyer for over 25 years. 

On November 30, 2005, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part IBM's

requests. Doc. #199. In its November 30 Order, the Court provided specific instructions as to how

Miller was required to respond to each interrogatory. The Court also ordered Miller to produce all

responsive documents. As to communications between Miller and Victor Paddock, the Court

ordered Miller to produce all withheld documents unless he served on IBM a sworn declaration from

Mr. Paddock attesting that he acted as Miller's attorney in giving BCC advice in relation to the

claims in this case.

Miller served IBM with "amended supplemental responses" on December 16 and 23, 2005. 

Decl. of Loren Kieve in Support of Motion to Compel Complete Interrogatory Responses (Doc.

#257), Exs. D and E. Arguing that Miller's supplemental responses did not comply with the Court's

November 30 Order, on January 12, 2006, IBM filed a motion to compel complete interrogatory

responses and for sanctions for Miller's violations of the November 30 Order. Doc. #256. In its

motion, IBM requested a further order that: (1) either (a) compelled Miller to comply with the

Court's previous order, or (b) limited him to the "proof" contained in his limited discovery

responses; and (2) imposed sanctions for Miller's failure to comply. In response, Miller argued that

he had retained counsel and requested that the Court permit new counsel additional time to assure

compliance with the November 30 Order. Doc. #301.

As to IBM's document requests, IBM again moved to compel production on January 12,

2006 (Doc. #259), arguing that Miller had not complied with the November 30 Order, including his

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 422 Filed 04/14/06 Page 2 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

failure to produce an un-redacted copy of a document he claims constitutes the assignment by BCC

of its rights to him, the corporate records of BCC, and the Paddock documents. IBM further argued

that Miller had not produced a complete set of e-mails relevant to this litigation. Miller again

requested that the Court permit new counsel additional time to assure compliance with the

November 30 Order. Doc. #306. 

On February 6, 2006, the Court granted Miller and his new counsel 30 additional days to

comply with the November 30 Order. Doc. #315. However, the Court stressed that if Miller failed

to provide full responses as ordered, it would "consider the imposition of sanctions, including

limiting Miller's responses to those contained in his various responses, as well as attorney's fees and

expenses." 

B. Witness Depositions and Expert Discovery

On November 22, 2005, IBM served Miller with interrogatories and document requests

relating to Miller's experts. Decl. of Loren Kieve in Support of IBM's Motion for Sanctions for

Failure to Provide Expert Discovery (Doc. #254), Ex. E. In response, Miller listed three retained

experts and twelve "non-retained experts," including himself. Id., Ex. F. Miller's twelve "nonretained" experts included individuals first identified as "fact" witnesses on November 18, 2005 (the

fact discovery cut-off date) - Norm Capper, Edward Nixon, and Yuri Voldarsy. Id., Exs. B and D. 

Miller also identified as "non-retained" experts Neil Blackley, Dimitry Dukhovny, and Michael

Walker.

On January 12, 2006, IBM filed a motion for sanctions for failure to provide expert

discovery. Doc. #253. In its motion, IBM sought an order precluding Miller from, among other

things, introducing any testimony from his three retained experts and his previously undisclosed

non-retained experts. On February 6, 2006, the Court issued an order that required Miller to make

available for deposition any "non-retained experts" or fact witnesses that were disclosed on or after

the fact discovery cut-off date - Norm Capper, Edward Nixon, Yuri Voladarsy, Neil Blackley,

Dimitry Dukhovny, and Michael Walker. Doc. #315. The February 6 Order required Miller to

make the named witnesses available for deposition within 30 days from the date of the Order and

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 422 Filed 04/14/06 Page 3 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

warned that the Court may consider sanctions, including preclusion of their testimony, if Miller

failed to make them available. The February 6 Order also directed Miller to furnish IBM with

updated expert reports and to respond to IBM's outstanding expert discovery requests.

C. IBM's Motion for Sanctions

On March 16, 2006, IBM filed the present motion for sanctions (Doc. #362), as well as the

Declaration of Loren Kieve in support thereof. Doc. #363. 

On March 30, 2006, Miller filed an Opposition, as well as the Declaration of William F.

Mueller in support thereof. Doc. #390.

On April 4, 2006, IBM filed a Reply (Doc. #402), as well as the Declaration of Loren Kieve

in support thereof. Doc. #403.

On April 13, 2006, the Court held a hearing on the matter. William F. Mueller appeared on

behalf of Miller. Loren Kieve appeared on behalf of IBM.

III. DISCUSSION

In its motion for sanctions, IBM argues that Miller's responses to Interrogatories 2, 5, 6 and 7

are still deficient. As to its document requests, IBM argues that Miller has: (1) still not produced an

unredacted copy of the alleged assignment; (2) produced no BCC corporate records; (3) not

produced e-mails and accompanying attachments together; (4) not produced the Paddock

documents; (5) not supplied a sworn affidavit; and (6) ignored the Court's order on confidential

document designations. IBM also argues that Miller has failed to make his "non-retained expert"

witnesses available for deposition, and failed to supply the expert discovery the Court ordered him

to provide. Pursuant to FRCP 37(b)(2), IBM argues that Miller should not be permitted to introduce

any evidence on these topics. The Court shall address each argument in turn. 

A. Legal Standard

Under FRCP 37, where a party fails to obey a discovery order, the Court may enter an order

"refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or

prohibiting that party from introducing designated matters in evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(B). 

Such orders are appropriate where a party has failed to provide meaningful discovery responses on

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 422 Filed 04/14/06 Page 4 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 5

key issues despite a court order to do so. United States v. Sumitomo Marine & Fire Ins. Co., Ltd.,

617 F.2d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir. 1980) (upholding order precluding party from introducing evidence of

damages where party failed to provide discovery responses for eighteen months); C&W

Construction Co. v. Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 745, ALF-CIO, 108

F.R.D. 389 (N.D. Cal. 1985) (imposing sanctions precluding party from introducing evidence at trial

regarding subjects covered by interrogatories where party, inter alia, made Fifth Amendment

assertions, delayed in responding to interrogatories and never fully responded to them, and

appointed a "person most knowledgeable" for deposition who had no knowledge of the facts);

Papagni v. Hammersmith Trust, 1999 WL 33292939 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (imposing sanctions taking

allegations in complaint as established and precluding contrary evidence where party delayed in

responding to discovery).

B. Application to the Case at Bar

1. Interrogatories

In its motion, IBM argues that Miller's responses to interrogatories 2, 5, 6 and 7 are still

deficient.

a. Interrogatory 2

Interrogatory 2 asks that, for each person identified in Miller's or IBM's initial disclosures,

Miller provide what he claims that person did or did not do with respect to his claims in this action,

including information as to particular dates, meetings or communications with those individuals. 

Kieve Decl. in Support of Motion to Compel Complete Interrogatory Responses (Doc. #257), Ex. A. 

The Court's November 30, 2005 Order directed Miller to "provide, to the best of his knowledge,

what each individual did or did not do that is relevant to his claims. Mr. Miller shall also direct

IBM's attention to the specific documents he claims detail the remaining information requested in

Interrogatory No. 2." Doc. #199.

On March 6, 2006, Miller served objections and consolidated responses to IBM's

interrogatories. Kieve Decl. in Support of Opposition to March 2, 2006 Motion (Doc. #357), Ex. G. 

In his response, Miller lists the individuals from the parties' initial disclosures and states their

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 422 Filed 04/14/06 Page 5 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 6

general participation relevant to his claims. However, Miller's response also states: "Plaintiff is

informed that among the thousands of meetings that occurred around the world relating to the BCC

Portal Project, significant meetings include but are not limited to the following meetings which are

further detailed in the chart contained in Appendix B hereto."

IBM argues that Miller's response is deficient because it admits that he is not providing

information about each significant meeting that took place, let alone all meetings in which the

individuals in the parties' initial disclosures took part. In response, Miller argues that he cannot

provide a script of each meeting over a three year period and has given IBM an extensive idea of

what occurred at what time.

Upon review of the parties' arguments and Miller's responses, the Court finds that full

preclusion sanctions are inappropriate. Miller's response, including Appendix B, provides

information requested in Interrogatory 2. However, to the extent that IBM argues that it does not

provide information about all meetings in which the individuals took part, the Court finds it

appropriate to preclude Miller from using any information he did not provide in response to

Interrogatory 2. Accordingly, Miller is PRECLUDED from submitting any such evidence in support

of his case, unless, within 14 days from the date of this Order, Miller serves on IBM a discovery log

detailing all previous discovery responses that provide the information requested in Interrogatory 2. 

Miller must provide specific references (i.e., date of production, Bates and/or page numbers, and

labels) which enable IBM to locate the information about meetings with the individuals. For any

information not found in Interrogatory 2 or this discovery log, Miller is PRECLUDED from

introducing the information as evidence in this case. 

b. Interrogatory 5

Interrogatory 5 asks Miller to describe each communication he had relating to any fact

alleged in the second amended complaint with any person other than employees or representatives of

any defendant, including (a) each participant, (b) the place where each person was during that

communication, (c) the date and time of the communication, (d) what each person said or did during

that communication, and (e) to identify each document discussed or prepared during or as a result of

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 422 Filed 04/14/06 Page 6 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

that communication. Doc. #257, Ex. A. The Court's November 30 Order instructed Miller to "direct

IBM's attention to the specific documents he claims detail the information requested in Interrogatory

No. 5." Doc. #199.

Miller's March 6 response to Interrogatory 5 lists entities with which he communicated. 

Doc. #357, Ex. G. It also states: "See Response Log ot Interrogatory No. 5 Appendix C for select

meetings relating to IBM matters," and "Meetings were held at various times and intervals over a

two year period as reflected in documents referencing communications with the below individuals

and companies as has been produced." Id.

IBM argues that this response admits that Miller is not providing all information about all

communications, just select communications. IBM directs the Court's attention to Appendix C and

argues that it does not include documents detailing all of the information requested in Interrogatory

5 because it lists only eight documents, while Miller's response lists 92 entities with whom he

communicated. In response, Miller argues that he has done the best job possible to respond in detail

to the requested information, but a transcript of every meeting is not available, nor is there any way

to identify every meeting.

Upon review of the parties' arguments and Miller's responses, it is clear that Miller has not

responded as fully as possible. As IBM points out, Miller's response to Interrogatory 5 lists only

eight documents while listing 92 entities with whom he communicated. As the Court's November 30

Order instructed Miller to direct IBM's attention to the specific documents he claims detail the

information requested in Interrogatory No. 5, the Court finds it appropriate to limit his evidence to

the eight documents he provided in response. Accordingly, Miller may use his response to

Interrogatory 5 as evidence, but is hereby PRECLUDED from using any documents indicating

communication with the 92 entities, with the exception of the eight documents listed in Appendix C. 

To the extent that Miller's response also provides that documents referencing

communications with the 92 entities have been produced, he is PRECLUDED from submitting any

such evidence in support of his case, unless, within 14 days from the date of this Order, Miller

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 422 Filed 04/14/06 Page 7 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

serves on IBM a discovery log detailing all previous discovery responses that provide the

information requested in Interrogatory 5. Miller must provide specific references (i.e., date of

production, Bates and/or page numbers, and labels) which enable IBM to locate the information for

the 92 entities without searching. For any information not found in Interrogatory 5 or this discovery

log, Miller is PRECLUDED from introducing the information as evidence. 

c. Interrogatories 6 and 7

Interrogatory 6 asks Miller to itemize each element of damages he claims and to state the

basis for which he claims he is entitled to that element of damages. Doc. #257, Ex. A. The Court's

November 30 Order instructed Miller to "provide, to the best of his knowledge, the contractual or

other basis for which he claims he is entitled to specific elements of his claims for damages. If the

information is contained in documents already produced, Mr. Miller shall direct IBM's attention to

specific documents." Doc. #199.

Miller's March 6 response to Interrogatory 6 provides damage calculations and states that

they are supported by documents in Dr. Jerald Udinsky's Expert Report and the contracts on which

Miller is suing IBM. Doc. #357, Ex. G. IBM argues that these source documents are not identified

in Miller's response or in Dr. Udinsky's report. In response, Miller argues that his response

identifies several contracts which are deemed to be violated, along with appropriate calculations.

Interrogatory 7 asks Miller to state in detail how he calculates each element of damages he

claims in this action and identify each document that relates to or supports that element of damages. 

Doc. #257, Ex. A. The Court's November 30 Order directed Miller to "state how he calculates each

element of damages and identify the specific documents he claims relate or support each element of

damages . . ." Doc. #199.

Miller's March 6 response to Interrogatory 7 provides a calculations chart as an explanation

for how he calculates damages. Doc. #357, Ex. G. It also references his response to Interrogatory 6,

which states that the damage calculations are supported by documents in Dr. Jerald Udinsky's Expert

Report and the contracts on which Miller is suing IBM. IBM argues that the chart is unintelligible

and does not give IBM a clue as to how Miller is calculating his damages. In response, Miller

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 422 Filed 04/14/06 Page 8 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

argues that the fact that IBM claims it does not understand the chart does not mean that the response

or the chart are unintelligible.

Upon review of Miller's responses, the Court finds that full preclusion sanctions are

inappropriate. In response to the Court's Order November 30 Order, Miller provided a chart

showing his damage claims, and identified the contracts and Dr. Udinsky's report as the documents

he claims support each element of damages. While this information may not be as detailed as IBM

wishes, it does limit Miller as to what evidence he may use to support his damage claims. 

Moreover, the Court also recognizes IBM's argument that it is still unable to discern which

documents Miller uses to base his damage claims because the source documents are not identified in

Miller's response. Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to limit Miller's damage calculations

to his interrogatory responses. Thus, Miller may only use his responses to Interrogatories 6 and 7,

Dr. Udinsky's report, and the contracts on which he is suing. Miller is hereby PRECLUDED from

using any other documents or calculations as evidence of his damage claims.

2. Document Requests

Next, IBM argues that Miller has: (1) still not produced an unredacted copy of BCC's

assignment; (2) produced no BCC corporate records; (3) not produced e-mails and accompanying

attachments together; (4) not produced the Paddock documents; (5) not supplied a sworn affidavit;

and (6) ignored the Court's order on confidential document designations. 

a. unredacted assignment

On March 6, 2006, Miller produced an unredacted copy of the BCC "Closing Resolution,"

which assigns BCC's rights to Miller. Kieve Decl. (Doc. #357), Ex. D. IBM argues that the copy

produced is unsigned and it is still waiting for a signed document. However, in its Reply, IBM

states that Miller provided a signed copy on March 27, 2006. Accordingly, this issue is moot. 

Although IBM also argues that the assignment should be precluded because its production was

untimely, to do so would leave Miller without a document assigning BCC's rights to Miller.

b. BCC corporate records

IBM also argues that Miller has failed to produced BCC's corporate records. As this issue is

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 422 Filed 04/14/06 Page 9 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 10

the subject of another motion pending before it, IBM's March 16, 2006 Motion to Compel Plaintiff

Ralph Miller to Produce Documents in the Possession of the Former Altheimer & Grey Law Firm

(Doc.## 359-61), the Court shall not address the BCC records here.

c. Miller's failure to produce e-mails and accompanying attachments together

In its February 6 Order, the Court ordered Miller to produce emails with the attachments

physically attached to the emails to which they belong. On March 6, 2006, Miller produced certain

electronic documents. Kieve Decl. (Doc. #357), Ex. G. IBM argues that Miller did not produce

emails and attachments physically attached to one another. In response, Miller argues that the

attachments were produced to IBM as files on a disk, and he has identified the specific emails to

which the produced files were referenced. Miller also argues that he should not be compelled to

guess as to which attachments belong to which emails when these cannot be determined with

certainty, particularly when the bulk of the e-mails and attachments originated with IBM.

It is not clear how Miller can argue that he has identified specific email to which the

produced files were referenced, while at the same time stating that he cannot determine which

attachments belong to which emails. Accordingly, within 14 days from the date of this Order, Miller

shall either: (a) produce the relevant emails with the attachments physically attached, or (b) provide

specific references (i.e., date of production, Bates and/or page numbers, and labels) which enable

IBM to identify which attachments belong to which emails. If Miller fails to comply with this order,

he shall be precluded from using and emails and/or attachments that are not properly attached to

each other. 

d. Paddock documents

IBM also argues that Miller has failed to produce documents from Victor Paddock. As this

issue is the subject of another motion pending before it, Miller's March 2, 2006 Motion for an Order

Modifying the Court's February 6, 2006 Order (Doc. #347), the Court shall not address the

Paddock documents here.

e. Miller's sworn declaration

In its February 6 Order, the Court also ordered Miller to serve on IBM a sworn affidavit fully

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 422 Filed 04/14/06 Page 10 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 11

describing why he was unable to produce any electronic files not produced that are relevant to this

litigation. IBM contends that Miller failed to produce an affidavit. In response, Miller argues that

IBM's motion "does not state what kind of sworn Affidavit it wants or why it has reason to doubt the

legal positions being exchanged on such items as the Altheimer & Gray or Paddock documents."

It is unclear why Miller argues that he did not respond to the Court's February 6 Order

because IBM does not state what kind of affidavit it wants. Had Miller and his counsel failed to

understand the Court's directive, they could have sought clarification from the Court; instead, they

apparently chose not to comply. The Court's order is clear: serve a declaration explaining why

Miller is unable to produce relevant documents. Accordingly, Miller is hereby PRECLUDED from

using any electronic files as evidence that he has not already produced to IBM.

f. confidential document designations

Finally, IBM argues that Miller continues to designate documents as confidential that are not

entitled to confidential treatment. On February 6, the Court ordered Miller to show good cause why

each specific document should receive confidential treatment. IBM requests that the Court release

all of Miller's documents from any further protection as a failure to comply with the Court's orders. 

In response, Miller argues that IBM has not cited specific documents that are not confidential.

In IBM's reply, it argues that none of Miller's produced documents are entitled to

confidential treatment. As Miller's proffered reason for not complying with the Court's previous

order is in direct contrast to the Court's order and, at the latest, rectified by IBM's reply, Miller shall

either (a) show good cause for all produced documents, or (b) de-designate all produced documents. 

If Miller fails to comply with this Order by April 21, 2006, the Court shall release all Miller's

documents from any further protection.

3. "Non-retained expert" witnesses

Next, IBM argues that Miller has failed, despite a court order compelling him to do so, to

make six witnesses - Norm Capper, Edward Nixon, Yuri Voladarsy, Neil Blackley, Dimitry

Dukhovny, and Michael Walker - available for deposition. In response, Miller argues that IBM had

not proposed dates for the depositions or even suggested that it still wanted to take them.

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 422 Filed 04/14/06 Page 11 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 12

Upon review of the record in this matter, the Court finds that Miller's response is not

credible. On January 30, 2006, IBM's counsel asked in am email to Mr. Mueller, Miller's New

Jersey counsel, to "please let me know what dates Mr. Miller's experts would be available for

deposition." IBM's counsel confirmed in a follow-up email of January 31, 2006 that "[w]e want to

take the deposition of anyone who is going to give what Miller characterized as 'expert' testimony." 

March 9, 2006 Kieve Decl. (Doc. #357), Exs. I and J. 

On February 7, 2006, the day after the Court entered its February 6 order directing Miller to

make these witnesses available for deposition, IBM's counsel wrote to Mr. Mueller asking "to take

the depositions of the persons listed in part E of Her Honor's order." Id. at Ex. E. IBM's counsel

then asked that Mr. Mueller "please give me a call to discuss how we can pull all this together in the

next 29 days and start setting some dates." Id. IBM states, and Miller does not deny, that it received

no response to this request. 

On February 24, 2006, IBM's counsel again sent a letter requesting that Miller provide

available deposition dates for these witnesses. March 16, 2006 Kieve Decl. (Doc. #363), Ex. E. Mr.

Mueller responded by stating that IBM must request specific dates. Id., Ex. F. On February 27,

IBM proposed March 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 for the six depositions. Id., Ex. G. On March 1, Mr.

Mueller emailed IBM's counsel at 12:20 p.m. to offer Edward Nixon for deposition by telephone on

March 2 at 2 p.m. Id., Ex. H. Other than this last minute offer to make Mr. Nixon available by

telephone, Miller has not made any of the witnesses available for deposition.

Upon review of this documented history, the Court finds no excuse for Miller's failure to

comply with its previous orders and make these six witnesses available for deposition. As the Court

warned that it would consider preclusion sanctions for failure to comply with its February 6 Order,

the Court finds preclusion sanctions appropriate. Accordingly, the Court hereby PRECLUDES

Miller from using the testimony of Norm Capper, Edward Nixon, Yuri Voladarsy, Neil Blackley,

Dimitry Dukhovny, and Michael Walker in this case.

4. Expert discovery 

Finally, IBM argues that Miller has not furnished any of the expert materials as ordered. As

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 422 Filed 04/14/06 Page 12 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 13

part of its February 6 Order, the Court directed Miller to furnish IBM with updated expert reports

that comply with FRCP 26(a)(2)(B) and to respond to IBM's outstanding expert discovery requests. 

Miller does not address this issue in his opposition. The Honorable Martin J. Jenkins, presiding

judge in this matter, also addressed the outstanding expert discovery at a status conference on April

11, 2006. At the status conference, Judge Jenkins ordered Miller to provide a summary of expert

witness testimonies by April 14, 2006, and complete expert depositions by April 28, 2006. Doc.

#410. To the extent not addressed by Judge Jenkins, Miller must complete all expert discovery,

including compliance with this Court's February 6 Order and FRCP 26(a)(2)(B), by April 21, 2008. 

Miller is hereby PRECLUDED from using any expert materials not produced by April 21, 2008. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on this analysis, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART IBM's

motion for sanctions as detailed above. Failure to comply with this Order shall result in the

imposition of further sanctions, including the potential termination of this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2006 MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:02-cv-02118-MJJ Document 422 Filed 04/14/06 Page 13 of 13