Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc.

Background

Veeva filed a motion in limine, meaning a request to limit evidence or arguments at trial. It asked the court to exclude evidence and argument concerning 18,127 documents listed in Medidata’s response to Veeva’s Interrogatory No. 7, along with similar documents. The interrogatory asked Medidata to identify which trade secrets were contained in particular documents retained by former Medidata employees after leaving Medidata.

Medidata’s final response identified 18,127 unique documents covering 55,311 pages and assigned documents or large portions of documents to different classes of alleged trade secrets. During discovery, the court had twice ordered Medidata to provide more specific responses. Judge Lehrburger had also warned that Medidata’s failure to identify the alleged trade secrets specifically could affect summary judgment or trial, and that Medidata would be held to its discovery answers.

Court’s reasoning

The court relied on its earlier summary-judgment ruling. That ruling found that Medidata’s response to Interrogatory No. 7 did not identify the alleged trade secrets specifically enough for a jury to apply the required legal tests. The response did not explain how particular documents embodied particular trade secrets. Without that explanation, a factfinder could not determine issues such as whether the information qualified as a trade secret, had value, was maintained as secret, or was misappropriated.

Allowing Medidata to introduce the documents at trial would, in the court’s view, circumvent the specificity requirement. Veeva and the jury would face the same uncertainty created by thousands of pages that had been excluded from consideration on summary judgment because Medidata had not adequately described the alleged trade secrets. The court also found that Veeva could be prejudiced if Medidata waited until trial to explain for the first time what trade secrets appeared in the documents and where they appeared.

Medidata argued that identifying a trade secret and proving its misappropriation were different issues, and that documents taken from a party could help corroborate misappropriation. The court acknowledged that distinction but held that Medidata’s opportunity to explain how the documents embodied particular trade secrets had passed. Medidata had made that type of explanation for documents cited in its response to Interrogatory No. 5, but not for the documents identified under Interrogatory No. 7.

Ruling

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted in part Veeva’s motion. At trial, Medidata may not introduce evidence or argument concerning documents identified in its response to Interrogatory No. 7, except for documents also identified in its response to Interrogatory No. 5.

Veeva also sought exclusion of “similar documents,” but it did not identify specific documents in that category. The court stated that the admissibility of any such document would be decided consistently with this opinion if the issue arose, and that the issue must be raised before the document is offered at trial. The clerk was directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 404 and 407.