Opinion
19-cv-04238-MMC
07-23-2021
PROOFPOINT, INC., etal., Plaintiffs, v. VADE SECURE, INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT LEMARIE'S MOTION TO STRIKE, DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4, AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1; GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR DE NOVO DETERMINATION
MAXINE M. CHESNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On July 23, 2021, the five motions listed below came before the Court for hearing. Sean S. Pak of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and Jodie W. Cheng of JWC Legal appeared on behalf of Proofpoint. Douglas E. Lumish, Jeffrey G. Homrig, Margaret A. Tough, Joseph E. Lee, and Joseph R. Wetzel of Latham & Watkins appeared on behalf of Vade Secure. Adam S. Cashman and Evan Budaj of Singer Cashman LLP appeared on behalf of Lemarié.
Having considered the parties' respective written submissions, as well as the oral arguments made at the hearing, the Court, for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, rules as follows:
1. With respect to defendant Olivier Lemarié's ("Lemarié") "Motion to Strike the Expert Report and Opinions of Matthew Moore," filed April 24, 2021, the motion is hereby DENIED, with the limited exception that, to the extent Lemarié seeks to preclude Matthew Moore from speculating as to the content of any file he has not seen, the motion is hereby GRANTED.
2. With respect to defendants Vade Secure, Incorporated, Vade Secure SASU (collectively, "Vade Secure"), and Lemarié's "Motion in Limine No. 1 Regarding Documents on Mr. Lemarié's Personal Devices," filed June 28, 2021, the motion is hereby DENIED, with the limited exception that, to the extent defendants seek to preclude any witness from speculating as to the content of any file he or she has not seen, the motion is hereby GRANTED.
3. With respect to plaintiff Proofpoint, Inc. and plaintiff Cloudmark LLC's "Motion in Limine No. 4," filed June 28, 2021, the motion is hereby GRANTED to the extent plaintiffs seek to preclude defendants from offering evidence as to a reasonable royalty or arguing that a reasonable royalty should be awarded, and, in all other respects, the motion is hereby DENIED
4. With respect to Vade Secure's "Motion for De Novo Determination of Dispositive Matter Referred to Magistrate Judge," filed June 15, 2021, the motion is hereby GRANTED, without prejudice to any party's seeking, after the close of evidence, an instruction pertaining to spoliation of evidence.
5. With respect to Lemar¡e's "Motion for De Novo Determination of Dispositive Matter Referred to Magistrate Judge," filed June 15, 2021, the motion is hereby GRANTED, without prejudice to any party's seeking, after the close of evidence, an instruction pertaining to spoliation of evidence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.