Valeo Schalter und Sensoren GmbH v. NVIDIA Corporation

Background

NVIDIA moved to strike portions of Valeo’s technical expert Dr. Matthew Johnson-Roberson’s report. NVIDIA argued that the report disclosed trade-secret-misappropriation theories concerning NVIDIA’s alleged use of Valeo’s Trade Secrets Nos. 4 and 10 that Valeo had not timely disclosed during fact discovery. NVIDIA sought sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c), for failure to provide or supplement discovery information, and Rule 37(b), for failure to obey a discovery order.

The disputed report sections concerned alleged benefits NVIDIA received from using the trade secrets, including saved development time and resources. At the hearing, the parties focused on paragraphs 1252–1255 concerning Trade Secret No. 4 and paragraphs 1423–1426 concerning Trade Secret No. 10. The court’s final order denied the motion as to paragraphs 1241–1255 and 1410–1426.

Timeliness of the Motion

Valeo argued that NVIDIA’s motion was untimely because NVIDIA waited nearly three months after receiving the expert report before filing it. NVIDIA responded that the parties had been discussing several disputes about the report until March 7, 2025, and that it acted diligently afterward.

The court found that NVIDIA had not moved promptly and was not persuaded that filing before the close of expert discovery would have been impractical or burdensome. The court nevertheless considered the motion on its merits because NVIDIA argued that its alleged prejudice could not have been cured without reopening fact discovery.

Rule 37(c) Analysis

NVIDIA argued that Valeo should have disclosed its contentions about NVIDIA’s use of Trade Secrets Nos. 4 and 10 in response to Interrogatory No. 7, which asked for the facts supporting Valeo’s allegation that NVIDIA had used improperly acquired trade secrets. Valeo’s response identified other trade secrets but did not specifically identify Trade Secrets Nos. 4 and 10 in that response.

Valeo argued that it had disclosed the relevant theory elsewhere. Its trade-secret disclosures described the substantial effort and investment involved in developing Trade Secrets Nos. 4 and 10. In response to Interrogatory No. 5, Valeo described the alleged value NVIDIA received, including saved development costs and a shortcut in developing parking-assistance software. In response to Interrogatory No. 6, Valeo identified Trade Secrets Nos. 4 and 10 as secrets disclosed to NVIDIA and provided related factual information. Valeo also incorporated its response to Interrogatory No. 6 into a supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 7.

The court concluded that Valeo had disclosed in other discovery responses the same theory underlying Dr. Johnson-Roberson’s opinions. Valeo had also disclosed the documents it contended showed NVIDIA’s use of the trade secrets. The court therefore found that NVIDIA was not unfairly surprised by a new use theory. It also noted that NVIDIA had an opportunity to question Dr. Johnson-Roberson about his opinions and their factual bases during his deposition. The court held that Valeo did not fail to provide required discovery information and that any deficiency in the particular response to Interrogatory No. 7 was harmless.

Rule 37(b) Analysis

NVIDIA also argued that Valeo violated an October 18, 2024 discovery order requiring Valeo to timely supplement its interrogatory answers. The court reviewed that order and found that it did not specifically direct Valeo to supplement its answer to Interrogatory No. 7. Instead, the order denied NVIDIA’s requested preclusion order and reminded Valeo of its continuing duty under Rule 26(e) to supplement its responses if it obtained new information.

The court found that Valeo had adequately disclosed its theory, including its theory that NVIDIA used Trade Secrets Nos. 4 and 10. It also found that the October 18 order did not impose a distinct obligation that Valeo failed to obey. In any event, the court was not persuaded that striking the disputed report portions would be an appropriate remedy for failing to expressly disclose in Interrogatory No. 7 information that Valeo had disclosed in other discovery responses.

Disposition

Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi denied NVIDIA’s motion to strike paragraphs 1241–1255 and 1410–1426 of Dr. Johnson-Roberson’s expert report.