Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH v. NVIDIA Corporation

Background

Valeo asked the court to issue a letter of request under the Hague Evidence Convention seeking documents from Mercedes-Benz Group AG, a nonparty located in Stuttgart, Germany. The proposed request concerned categories of documents relating to NVIDIA’s software contract with Mercedes, Mercedes’s work involving former Valeo employee Mohamed Shawki Elamir, and the alleged use of Valeo trade secrets.

Valeo asserted that NVIDIA recruited former Valeo employees to obtain Valeo’s trade secrets and that Mercedes would have documents about NVIDIA’s technology, performance, and work involving Mr. Elamir. Valeo also argued at the hearing that it sought impeachment evidence or evidence to refresh a witness’s recollection at trial rather than pretrial discovery.

Timeliness

NVIDIA opposed the motion, arguing that Valeo filed it too late for the requested documents to be obtained before the December 18, 2024 fact-discovery deadline. The court noted that Valeo filed the motion on November 18, 2024 and did not request expedited treatment or seek relief from the discovery deadline.

The court found that Valeo had known for some time about Mr. Elamir’s work for Mercedes and NVIDIA, NVIDIA’s contract with Mercedes, and the subjects of the requested documents. Because Valeo had not shown good cause for waiting until November 18, 2024, the court concluded that the motion was untimely. The court also found that the proposed request described categories of potentially existing documents rather than specific trial evidence and therefore sought ordinary pretrial discovery.

Hague Evidence Convention

The Hague Evidence Convention provides procedures for obtaining evidence located in another participating country. Germany’s declaration under Article 23 limits when Germany will execute requests for pretrial discovery of documents. Under the amended declaration described in the order, the requested documents must be separately and specifically described, immediately and clearly relevant to the proceeding and its outcome, in the possession of a party to the proceeding, consistent with fundamental principles of German law, and compliant with applicable requirements for transferring personal data when relevant.

The court concluded that Valeo’s proposed request did not satisfy those conditions. The documents were described collectively rather than separately in detail; they were sought from Mercedes, which was not a party to the case; and Valeo had not shown that the documents were immediately and clearly relevant to the trial. The court also noted that many of Valeo’s supporting assertions were based on information and belief and that Valeo had not identified anticipated testimony by Mr. Elamir that the documents would impeach or help refresh.

Disposition

The court denied Valeo’s motion for issuance of a letter of request. The order resolved the requested discovery procedure and did not decide whether NVIDIA misappropriated Valeo’s trade secrets.