Automated Summary
Key Facts
Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH sued NVIDIA Corporation for trade secret misappropriation. NVIDIA filed a motion to strike portions of Valeo's expert report (served January 24, 2025) as untimely, filed April 7, 2025, nearly three months later. The motion concerned alleged misappropriation of Trade Secrets Nos. 4 and 10, which Valeo disclosed through other discovery responses to Interrogatories Nos. 5 and 6. The Court denied NVIDIA's motion, finding Valeo adequately disclosed the 'use' theory during discovery and that any deficiency in the Interrogatory No. 7 response was harmless. The order was issued on July 31, 2025 by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi.
Issues
- Whether Plaintiff Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH violated the Court's October 18, 2024 discovery order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) by failing to timely supplement its interrogatory answers
- Whether Defendant NVIDIA Corporation's motion to strike portions of Plaintiff Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH's expert report was filed untimely, considering the motion was filed approximately three months after the expert report was served on January 24, 2025
- Whether Plaintiff Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH failed to provide information required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c) by not disclosing its 'use' contentions regarding Trade Secrets Nos. 4 and 10 in its response to Interrogatory No. 7
Holdings
The Court denied NVIDIA Corporation's motion to strike portions of plaintiff Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH's expert report by Dr. Matthew Johnson-Roberson. The Court found that Valeo adequately disclosed its theory of misappropriation, including NVIDIA's alleged use of Trade Secrets Nos. 4 and 10, during discovery through responses to Interrogatories Nos. 5 and 6, and that any deficiency in its response to Interrogatory No. 7 was harmless. The Court also found that Valeo complied with the October 18, 2024 discovery order and that striking the disputed portions was not an appropriate remedy.
Remedies
The court denied NVIDIA Corporation's motion to strike portions of plaintiff Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH's expert report (paragraphs 1241-1255 and 1410-1426) regarding alleged misappropriation of Trade Secrets Nos. 4 and 10. The court found that Valeo adequately disclosed its theory of misappropriation during discovery through responses to Interrogatories Nos. 5 and 6, and that any deficiency in Interrogatory No. 7 was harmless. The court also found that the October 18, 2024 discovery order did not impose a distinct obligation that Valeo failed to obey, and determined that striking the disputed portions was not an appropriate remedy.
Legal Principles
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c) authorizes courts to sanction parties by striking or excluding evidence when they fail to provide information as required by Rule 26, unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless. Rule 37(b) authorizes sanctions for failure to obey discovery orders, including prohibiting introduction of designated matters in evidence.
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) requires parties to supplement or correct their responses to interrogatories in a timely manner when they learn that information is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to other parties during discovery.
Precedent Name
Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp.
Cited Statute
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- California Code of Civil Procedure
Judge Name
Virginia K. DeMarchi
Passage Text
- Valeo argues that NVIDIA's motion to strike should be denied outright because NVIDIA delayed three months after receiving Dr. Johnson-Roberson's expert report on January 24, 2025 before filing the motion on April 7, 2025. Valeo relies on Civil Local Rule 7-8(c) which provides that a motion seeking sanctions must comply with any applicable Federal Rule and must be made as soon as practicable after the filing party learns of the circumstances that it alleges make the motion appropriate.
- The Court denies NVIDIA's motion to strike paragraphs 1241-1255 and 1410-1426 of Dr. Johnson-Roberson's expert report.
- While Valeo did not expressly disclose a 'use' theory corresponding to Trade Secrets Nos. 4 and 10 in response to Interrogatory No. 7, Valeo did disclose the precise 'use' theory that forms the basis for Dr. Johnson-Roberson's expert disclosures in its responses to other discovery requests, including specifically in its responses to Interrogatories Nos. 5 and 6. Valeo also previously disclosed all documents it contends reflect NVIDIA's use of Trade Secrets Nos. 4 and 10 in its responses to Interrogatory No. 6.