Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited v. The Trizetto Group, Inc.

Background

Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited and Syntel, Inc., together called “Syntel,” filed three motions in limine—motions asking the court to decide before trial whether certain evidence could be used. Syntel sought to prevent The TriZetto Group, Inc. and Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp., together called “Defendants,” from introducing or referring to the forensic report prepared by Samuel S. Rubin and related information. Syntel also challenged evidence concerning the so-called “Copying Issue,” including the assertion that Syntel’s computers, email accounts, and servers contained approximately 2,000 responsive files, 963 of which did not come from TriZetto. Finally, Syntel sought to prevent Rubin from testifying.

Court’s Analysis

The court ruled that the parties could not refer at trial to any court order, including the order authorizing the forensic examination. It found that such orders had little or no useful value as evidence and could unfairly prejudice the jury by suggesting that the court viewed Syntel negatively.

The court did not exclude testimony about the forensic examination or its results, Rubin’s testimony, or evidence and arguments concerning the Copying Issue. It found that this material was highly relevant to Defendants’ claims, particularly their counterclaims for trade-secret misappropriation, and that its usefulness outweighed the risk of unfair prejudice. The court explained that evidence can be harmful to a party because it tends to prove the opposing side’s claims without being unfairly prejudicial under Evidence Rule 403.

The court also rejected Syntel’s argument under Evidence Rules 701 and 702. It characterized Rubin’s proposed testimony as factual rather than expert opinion. Rubin could testify about the examination, the procedures he used, the TriZetto documents he found on Syntel’s computers, where he found the files, and when Syntel downloaded, saved, or disseminated the documents. He would remain subject to cross-examination about his methods and findings.

The court did not exclude the written forensic report under Evidence Rules 401, 402, 403, 701, or 702. However, it reserved whether the report could be admitted under the rules governing hearsay or business records, depending on whether Defendants could provide the required foundation.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that Syntel’s motions in limine Nos. 5, 6, and 7 concerning the forensic examination were denied, except that admissibility of the written forensic report was reserved. The clerk was directed to close the three motions. The court also stated that it would consider any proposed jury instruction concerning the forensic examination.