Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00244/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00244-44/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART RAMBUS'S MOTION IN LIMINE No. 12 TO PRECLUDE THE

PLAYING OR READING OF PRIOR TESTIMONY IN OPENING STATEMENTS

C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF

E-filed: 1/21/2008 

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 GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART RAMBUS'S MOTION

IN LIMINE No. 12 TO PRECLUDE THE

PLAYING OR READING OF PRIOR

TESTIMONY IN OPENING STATEMENTS

[Re Docket No. 2845]

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 705 Filed 01/21/08 Page 1 of 5
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

1 For purposes of this order, the court collectively refers to the Hynix, Micron, and Nanya

entities as "the Manufacturers."

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART RAMBUS'S MOTION IN LIMINE No. 12 TO PRECLUDE THE

PLAYING OR READING OF PRIOR TESTIMONY IN OPENING STATEMENTS

C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 2

 RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX

SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC.,

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR

MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC., 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,

INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,

SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,

L.P., 

NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,

NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

U.S.A.,

Defendants.

No. C-05-00334 RMW

[Re Docket No. 821]

RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., and

MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS,

INC.

Defendants.

No. C-06-00244 RMW

[Re Docket No. 455]

Trial in these three consolidated cases is set for January 29, 2008. The Manufacturers1

 hope

to prove that Rambus, among other things, monopolized or attempted to monopolize six technology

markets. The technology markets cover various technologies essential for making DRAMs. 

This order addresses Rambus's twelfth motion in limine to preclude playing or reading prior

testimony in their opening statements. The motion simply seeks to limit counsels' opening

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 705 Filed 01/21/08 Page 2 of 5
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 The court has found one written order from the Western District of Wisconsin where

Judge Crabb permitted a party to play segments of a video deposition in its opening statement. MBI

Acquisition Partners, L.P. v. Chronicle Pub. Co., 2002 WL 32349903, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 2, 2002).

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART RAMBUS'S MOTION IN LIMINE No. 12 TO PRECLUDE THE

PLAYING OR READING OF PRIOR TESTIMONY IN OPENING STATEMENTS

C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 3

statements to descriptions of what the evidence will show, and to prevent counsel from reading prior

testimony or playing snippets of video depositions. The court has reviewed the papers and

considered the arguments of counsel.

There is sparse case law on whether a court should permit parties to play portions of video

depositions in their opening statements. Indeed, the parties' briefing do not cite any cases involving

civil jury trials.2

 Nonetheless, one respected treatise recommends the practice as "very effective"

advocacy. Jones, Rosen, Wegner, & Jones, Rutter Group Practice Guide: Federal Civil Trials &

Evidence ¶¶ 6:272-6:275 (2007).

The court is less sanguine regarding the practice. Videotaped testimony may seem more

believable or important to the lay jury because it can both see and hear the witness. During

argument, Rambus submitted that it cannot "preview" what its live witnesses will look like and

testify to; it can only generally describe what it hopes to elicit. On the other hand, if unrestricted, a

video deposition can be shown once in opening, again during trial (at least once), and in closing in

the exact same form. Repeatedly showing the same few deposition segments seems to exalt the

relevance of those videotaped shreds of evidence over live testimony. Cf. Federal Judicial Center,

Effective Use of Courtroom Technology: A Judge's Guide to Pretrial and Trial, 156 (2001).

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 705 Filed 01/21/08 Page 3 of 5
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

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART RAMBUS'S MOTION IN LIMINE No. 12 TO PRECLUDE THE

PLAYING OR READING OF PRIOR TESTIMONY IN OPENING STATEMENTS

C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 4

Accordingly, the court grants Rambus's motion with respect to segments of videotaped

deposition testimony. Neither side shall use any videotaped deposition testimony in its opening

statement. With respect to reading deposition transcripts, the court does not share Rambus's

concerns about a lay jury giving undue weight to a verbatim reading. Accordingly, the remainder of

Rambus's motion is denied. If the parties wish to read a portion of a deposition transcript in their

opening statement, they are to exchange any excerpt with opposing counsel sufficiently in advance

of opening statements so that the court can rule on any dispute over use.

DATED: 1/21/2008 

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 705 Filed 01/21/08 Page 4 of 5
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

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART RAMBUS'S MOTION IN LIMINE No. 12 TO PRECLUDE THE

PLAYING OR READING OF PRIOR TESTIMONY IN OPENING STATEMENTS

C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 5

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff(s):

Craig N. Tolliver ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com 

Pierre J. Hubert phubert@mckoolsmith.com 

Brian K. Erickson berickson@dbllp.com, 

David C. Vondle dvondle@akingump.com 

Gregory P. Stone gregory.stone@mto.com 

Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke luedtkech@mto.com 

Peter A. Detre detrepa@mto.com 

Burton Alexander Gross burton.gross@mto.com, 

Steven McCall Perry steven.perry@mto.com

Jeannine Y. Sano sanoj@howrey.com 

Counsel for Defendant(s):

Matthew D. Powers matthew.powers@weil.com 

David J. Healey david.healey@weil.com 

Edward R. Reines Edward.Reines@weil.com

John D Beynon john.beynon@weil.com

Jared Bobrow jared.bobrow@weil.com

Leeron Kalay leeron.kalay@weil.com

Theodore G. Brown, III tgbrown@townsend.com

Daniel J. Furniss djfurniss@townsend.com

Jordan Trent Jones jtjones@townsend.com

Kenneth L. Nissly kennissly@thelenreid.com 

Geoffrey H. Yost gyost@thelenreid.com 

Susan Gregory van Keulen svankeulen@thelenreid.com

Patrick Lynch plynch@omm.com 

Jason Sheffield Angell jangell@orrick.com

Vickie L. Feeman vfeeman@orrick.com

Mark Shean mshean@orrick.com 

Kai Tseng hlee@orrick.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 1/21/2008 TSF

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 705 Filed 01/21/08 Page 5 of 5