Palantir Technologies Inc. v. Abramowitz

Background

The court issued this order on the parties’ motions in limine, which are requests to decide the admissibility of evidence before trial. The rulings followed the October 13, 2022 final pretrial conference.

Palantir’s motions

1. Evidence about the i2 litigation — denied. Palantir sought to exclude evidence about earlier litigation involving i2, Inc. The court found that some aspects of that litigation, including Palantir’s settlement on behalf of Shyam Sankar, were relevant to Sankar’s credibility and possible bias. The court found that the risk of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh that relevance. It denied the motion but allowed a limiting instruction stating that the information could be used only to assess Sankar’s bias or credibility.

2. Superseded trade-secret disclosures — granted. The court found that Palantir’s non-operative, or superseded, trade-secret disclosures had little or no relevance, were created after the alleged conduct, and could confuse the jury and waste time. The court granted Palantir’s motion to exclude them.

3. Evidence about Palantir’s motive for filing the lawsuit and the Delaware litigation — denied. The court ruled that Palantir’s motive for bringing the current lawsuit was not relevant. But it found that evidence about the Delaware litigation could be relevant to whether Palantir acted diligently to protect its trade secrets and to possible witness bias. The court therefore denied the motion while limiting the evidence to those subjects. It would consider specific exhibits when offered at trial.

4. Emails involving Abramowitz’s patent counsel — deferred. The court did not decide whether the emails were inadmissible hearsay, meaning out-of-court statements offered for the truth of what they assert. It deferred the ruling until trial, when it could assess the emails in context.

5. Testimony from David Lawrence — denied. The court found that Abramowitz had not adequately disclosed Lawrence as a witness and that allowing him to testify without a remedy would harm Palantir. Instead of excluding the testimony, the court required Abramowitz to make Lawrence available for a deposition before trial.

Abramowitz’s motions

1. Reasonable-royalty evidence and argument — denied. Abramowitz sought to keep the jury from hearing evidence or argument about a reasonable royalty under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The court held that the Seventh Amendment gives federal litigants the right to have a jury decide reasonable royalties in a trade-secret case. The court noted that it might limit how the issue was presented if damages or unjust enrichment were provable, but it denied the motion.

2. Contract damages — denied. Abramowitz initially sought to exclude all evidence and argument about damages for Palantir’s contract claim. The court found that Palantir had adequately disclosed the damages theory identified in its briefing and denied the motion. The court declined to consider Abramowitz’s alternative request concerning other damages theories because he raised it for the first time during oral argument and it had not been adequately briefed.

3. German litigation — denied, with a specific exclusion. The court found Abramowitz’s request to exclude any reference to the German litigation was overbroad and denied it. It would evaluate particular evidence when offered at trial. However, the court ruled that the parties could not mention the ongoing German criminal proceedings because that reference could unfairly lead the jury to infer that Abramowitz committed the alleged wrongdoing.

4. Abramowitz’s wealth — denied. The court found evidence of Abramowitz’s wealth relevant to the reasonable-royalty analysis, the circumstances in which Palantir entrusted him with confidential information, and exemplary damages. It ruled that the wealth evidence should be presented to the jury and denied the motion.

5. Palantir’s second amended trade-secret disclosure — granted. Applying its reasoning about superseded disclosures, the court found Palantir’s second amended disclosure inadmissible. Abramowitz’s motion was granted.

Overall disposition

The court’s final order denied Palantir’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1, 3, and 5; granted Palantir’s Motion No. 2; deferred Motion No. 4; denied Abramowitz’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1 through 4; and granted Abramowitz’s Motion No. 5. This order addressed pretrial evidence and did not decide the parties’ underlying trade-secret or contract claims.