Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Sheikh
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:18-cv-07602
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Cisco Systems v. Shahid Sheikh, Judge Rogers set trial procedures, granted stipulations, granted one expert-exclusion motion, and denied another.
The parties, their attorneys, witnesses, expert witnesses, and prospective jurors were affected by the trial schedule, evidentiary rulings, and courtroom procedures.
What happened
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Shahid H. Sheikh is a pretrial order issued after an October 16, 2020 conference. The court continued the trial to November 9, 2020, subject to possible further continuation because of another trial and COVID-19 safety concerns, and set procedures for jury selection, witnesses, exhibits, and courtroom conduct.
The court granted the parties’ stipulations. It granted the plaintiffs’ request to exclude Russell Mangum’s opening expert report because the report offered only an untethered hypothetical model, and denied the defendants’ request to exclude the reports of Daniel Levy and Greg Regan because their objections concerned the weight of the opinions rather than whether they could be admitted.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers also ordered that the parties follow rules concerning evidence, depositions, juror questions, possible punitive damages, interpreters, and COVID-19 precautions. The order stated that unidentified “Doe” defendants would be dismissed when the jury or first witness was sworn, and that related requests to keep materials secret would be addressed separately.
The detailed version
- Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Sheikh · No. 4:18-cv-07602
- Yvonne Rogers
- Oct. 21, 2020
Background
This is Pretrial Order No. 1 concerning the pretrial conference held on October 16, 2020. The court addressed the timing and management of the upcoming trial, evidentiary procedures, juror selection, witness and exhibit requirements, and several expert-evidence motions. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.
Trial schedule and general procedures
The court continued the trial to November 9, 2020, because another criminal jury trial took precedence. The parties were to be advised by noon on November 6 whether the case would proceed or be continued to January 7, 2021. The court also stated that it could reset the trial to January 7 if a jury could not be summoned because of public-safety or logistical concerns related to COVID-19.
The court set the jury-selection time, daily trial hours, the number of jurors, and the number of peremptory challenges. It ordered the parties to meet and confer about whether the counterclaim should be tried separately, limited the parties to witnesses on their pretrial witness list absent a court order, and established requirements for witness lists, exhibit lists, deposition designations, equipment, opening-statement exhibits, expert disclosures, and deposition transcripts. It also set rules for objections, written jury questions, trial decorum, interpreters, transcript requests, and possible punitive-damages proceedings.
Stipulations and evidentiary rulings
The court granted the parties’ stipulations filed at Docket No. 235. It ordered that witnesses be excluded until their testimony was completed and prohibited references to settlement discussions, mediation, insurance, and a party’s wealth except during any applicable punitive-damages phase. The court stated that rulings on other motions to exclude anticipated evidence would be issued separately.
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the court explained that expert testimony may be admitted when the expert is qualified and the opinion is relevant and reliable, and that the party offering the testimony bears the burden of showing admissibility.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion at Docket No. 132 to exclude Russell Mangum’s opening expert report. It found that the report offered no substantive opinion about an actual dispute for the jury and instead presented only a hypothetical model not tied to an issue in the case. The court stated that Mangum’s substantive opinions appeared in a rebuttal report that was not being challenged.
The court denied the defendants’ motion at Docket No. 134 to exclude the expert reports of Daniel Levy and Greg Regan. It ruled that the defendants’ objections went to the weight of the opinions, rather than their admissibility. The court found that Levy was qualified to critique and validate the risk-scoring model and that disagreements with his opinion were not a basis for exclusion. It also found that objections to Regan’s damages calculations and assumptions were matters for cross-examination, not a valid basis for excluding the testimony.
Other orders and disposition
The court ordered the parties to meet and confer about bifurcation of the counterclaim and various trial matters. It stated that additional witnesses would require a showing of good cause and a court order, and that failure to comply with the order could result in sanctions, including monetary fines or terminating sanctions. All Doe Defendants were to be deemed dismissed once the jury, or the first witness, was sworn, whichever occurred first. Related administrative motions to seal were to be addressed by separate order.
The court entered additional requirements because of COVID-19, including advance identification of people expected in the courtroom and instructions concerning deliveries. The order states that it terminates Docket Nos. 132, 134, and 235. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers signed the order on October 21, 2020.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.