Yu v. ByteDance Inc.

Background

The court considered disputes about Yintao Yu’s designation of a rebuttal expert witness and defendants’ motion for default. The parties disagreed about whether a stipulated pretrial schedule, adopted by the court, was intended to prevent rebuttal-expert designations after the schedule’s single expert-disclosure deadline.

Rebuttal expert and discovery

The court permitted Yu to disclose his rebuttal witness. Because the parties had not agreed about what the single disclosure deadline meant, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(D)’s rule allowing disclosure of rebuttal experts within 30 days.

The court found that defendants would not be prejudiced by the disclosure. It reopened expert discovery until October 1, 2024, for the limited purpose of allowing defendants to conduct discovery regarding Mr. Ryan and his opinions. The court directed the parties to cooperate in that discovery. It also stated that defendants could file a motion if they contended that Mr. Ryan’s report was not actually a rebuttal report.

Motion for default

The court denied defendants’ motion for default. It noted that Yu’s answer to defendants’ counterclaims was untimely but had been filed, and that the case had been actively litigated from its beginning. The court cited the principle that cases should be decided on their merits when reasonably possible.

Other instructions

The court directed the parties to file a joint statement or an appropriate motion if discovery issues arose. It instructed counsel not to email the clerk with substantive arguments and stated that the clerk should be contacted only about administrative matters, such as scheduling a hearing.