Usens, Inc. v. Chongqing Junma New Energy Automobile Co., Ltd.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:19-cv-00315
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Usens v. Chongqing Junma, Judge Freeman denied Chi Shi’s witness exclusions, denied two damages exclusions, and granted the rest.
uSens, Inc. and defendant Chi Shi; the order controls which witnesses and damages evidence uSens may present at trial.
What happened
In Usens, Inc. v. Chongqing Junma New Energy Automobile Co., Ltd., defendant Chi Shi asked the court to prevent Ping Sui and Yue Fei from testifying and to exclude evidence supporting uSens’s claimed damages. Chi Shi argued that the witnesses and damages information were not disclosed on time.
The court denied the request to exclude both witnesses. It required uSens to make Ping Sui and Dr. Fei available for depositions before trial, and said Sui could not testify if he refused. The court also denied the request concerning damages based on a ¥15 million contract and the ¥11 million sale of trade secrets, but granted the motion as to all other damages requests.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued the order on June 22, 2021. The ruling allowed uSens to present evidence about the two specified damages amounts while barring evidence about other potential damages.
The detailed version
- Usens, Inc. v. Chongqing Junma New Energy Automobile Co., Ltd. · No. 5:19-cv-00315
- Beth Freeman
- June 22, 2021
Background
In preparation for trial, defendant Chi Shi filed a motion in limine, meaning a request to decide before trial what evidence may be presented. Chi Shi sought to exclude testimony from Ping Sui and Yue Fei because Chi Shi argued that uSens disclosed them too late. Chi Shi also sought to exclude evidence related to uSens’s calculation of specific economic damages, arguing that uSens had not provided the required damages computations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iii).
uSens responded that it disclosed Sui promptly after learning of him on or about April 21, 2021, and that Dr. Fei was timely disclosed as a non-retained expert witness 90 days before trial. The opinion identifies Dr. Fei as uSens’s CEO.
Witnesses
The court denied the motion as to Sui. It found that uSens learned of Sui after discovery had closed and promptly disclosed him months before trial, making the late disclosure substantially justified. The court ordered uSens to make Sui available for a deposition before trial, which could occur remotely by audio or video. The court stated that Sui could not testify at trial if he refused to sit for the deposition.
The court also denied the motion as to Dr. Fei. It found that he was timely disclosed as a non-retained expert under Rule 26(a)(2)(C). The court noted that business owners or officers may generally testify about the value or projected profits of their businesses without qualifying as accountants, appraisers, or similar experts.
Damages Evidence
Rule 26 requires a party to provide a computation of each category of claimed damages and to make available the supporting documents or other evidentiary materials. Rule 37 generally bars a party that fails to provide information required by Rule 26 from using that information at trial unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless.
The court found that uSens had given Chi Shi fair notice of two damages estimates. In response to an interrogatory, uSens provided a lost-profit estimate of about ¥15 million, or $2,142,857, based on the contract price of the Junma-Zhonggan-uSens contract. When uSens disclosed Dr. Fei as a non-retained expert, it also informed Chi Shi that Fei would testify that unjust-enrichment damages were ¥11 million, approximately $1.7 million, based on the price at which uSens’s allegedly stolen trade secrets were sold.
The court ordered uSens to make Dr. Fei available for a deposition and to collect supporting documentation from him concerning the sale price before producing those documents to Chi Shi. It found that any failure to fully comply with Rule 26 was harmless. The court denied the motion as to the two identified damages requests and granted the motion as to all other damages requests. uSens may introduce testimony and evidence concerning damages related to the ¥15 million Junma-Zhonggan-uSens contract and the ¥11 million sale of trade secrets to Shadow Creator, but may not introduce testimony or evidence related to any other potential damages.
Disposition
The court denied Chi Shi’s motion as to the exclusion of Sui and Dr. Fei, denied it as to the two specified damages requests, and granted it as to all other damages requests.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.