Optronic Technologies, Inc. v. Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd.

Background

After a final pretrial conference, the court addressed four pending motions in limine and other pretrial motions: (1) Orion’s motion to exclude the rebuttal testimony of defendants’ expert Jeffrey Dean Redman; (2) defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6 concerning punitive damages; (3) defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 8 concerning testimony and questioning about a document involving Meade’s president, Victor Aniceto; and (4) Orion’s Motion in Limine No. 1 concerning a settlement agreement and a supply agreement involving Orion and the Synta Entities.

Redman’s Expert Testimony

Orion sought to exclude Redman’s testimony insofar as it would rebut the testimony of Orion’s damages expert, Dr. J. Douglas Zona. The court had previously excluded Redman’s rebuttal testimony concerning Orion’s technical expert. The court explained that Zona used econometric regression models and a “dominant firm” model to calculate alleged antitrust damages.

Although Redman had substantial experience in financial matters, the court found that he had no training in econometrics and was neither an economist nor an accountant. He testified that he had not previously used the dominant firm model, run a regression, calculated price elasticity or overcharges in an antitrust case, or understood several aspects of Zona’s methods. Because Redman did not understand the models and methods he criticized, the court found that his rebuttal testimony would not be reliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court granted Orion’s motion to exclude that testimony. Defendants could still rely on rebuttal testimony from their other damages expert, Dr. Celeste Saravia.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6

Defendants sought to prevent Orion from presenting evidence or argument concerning punitive damages. Orion agreed that punitive damages were unavailable for its federal-law claims and its claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law, but the parties disputed whether punitive damages were available under California’s Cartwright Act.

The court reasoned that the Cartwright Act provides mandatory treble damages to a successful plaintiff. Because treble damages are punitive in purpose, the court held that a Cartwright Act plaintiff cannot recover both mandatory treble damages and additional punitive damages. The court therefore granted defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 8

Defendants sought to prevent Orion from using deposition testimony about a document received by Victor Aniceto and to prohibit either party from eliciting live testimony about documents of which a witness lacked personal knowledge. The court found the motion premature and overly broad. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 602, a witness may testify about a matter only when evidence supports a finding that the witness has personal knowledge.

The court stated that Orion could call Aniceto and attempt to establish a foundation for questioning him about the document. The court would consider objections to that questioning at trial. The opinion does not state this ruling using an express “granted” or “denied” label.

Orion’s Motion in Limine No. 1

Before the litigation, Orion entered into a settlement agreement with the Synta Entities and, on the same day, entered into a supply agreement under which Orion would purchase telescopes with “Most Favored Customer Pricing.” Orion alleged that the Synta Entities conspired with defendants to violate antitrust laws.

The parties agreed to stipulate to a statement disclosing the existence of the settlement agreement, its parties, and its date. The parties were ordered to file that stipulation by noon on October 21, 2019, so the jury would understand why the Synta Entities were not at trial.

The court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 408 did not bar admission of the supply agreement because it was a separate, forward-looking business document that did not itself refer to the settlement, legal threats, or disputes. The jury could consider the supply agreement as evidence of the historical business relationship between Orion and the Synta Entities. The court also found that defendants had not presented a permissible reason to introduce the settlement agreement or other evidence of the compromise. The opinion does not state Orion’s motion using an express “granted” or “denied” label.

Result

The court granted Orion’s motion to exclude Redman’s rebuttal testimony and granted defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6. It found defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 8 premature and overly broad, allowing the issue to be addressed through objections at trial. It ordered a stipulation about the settlement agreement, allowed the supply agreement to be admitted for the stated historical-business purpose, and found no permissible basis for defendants to introduce the settlement agreement or other compromise evidence. Judge Edward J. Davila entered the order on October 17, 2019.