Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH v. NVIDIA Corporation

Background

Valeo alleges that NVIDIA misappropriated Valeo’s trade secrets concerning parking and driving assistance technology, violating the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act. In response to Valeo’s request for production number 2, NVIDIA made source code for an original-equipment-manufacturer software development project available for inspection. The project was not complete, and NVIDIA continued writing code. Fact discovery was scheduled to close on October 24, 2024.

Valeo and NVIDIA asked the court to resolve whether NVIDIA had to periodically update its source-code production for code developed after the close of fact discovery. Valeo requested monthly updates until the project entered production. NVIDIA said it would continue producing code through the fact-discovery deadline but argued that it had no obligation to produce code developed afterward.

Rule 26(e)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) requires a party that responded to a document request to timely supplement or correct its response if it learns that the response is materially incomplete or incorrect, unless the additional or corrective information has otherwise been made known to the opposing parties. The court held that this duty applies to document production and can extend beyond the close of discovery.

The court rejected NVIDIA’s position that an up-to-date production at the close of fact discovery necessarily ends its duty to consider later changes. Because the source code concerned ongoing work on the project, later developments could be relevant to whether the earlier production remained complete and accurate. But the court also explained that the duty to supplement does not automatically require production of every later-created document or code change.

Ruling

The court denied Valeo’s request for an order requiring NVIDIA to update its source-code production monthly after the close of fact discovery. NVIDIA must supplement its production if it makes material changes to responsive portions of the project’s source code after the close of fact discovery and those changes make the prior production materially incomplete or inaccurate, unless the additional or corrective information has otherwise been made known to Valeo. If NVIDIA makes no such material changes, it has no duty to supplement on that basis.

Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi encouraged the parties to agree on a post-discovery date for any supplemental production required under Rule 26(e), while avoiding disruption to other pretrial deadlines. The order addressed the discovery dispute and did not decide the underlying trade-secret allegations.