SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge has denied a motion for a plaintiff to supplement expert reports in a copyright infringement case, stating it would "unreasonably burden the court."
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Jon Tigar on Jan. 29 denied plaintiff Oracle International Corp.’s motion to supplement expert reports in a case against Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co.
“Allowing Oracle to amend its expert reports in a way that blows up the expert discovery and summary judgment schedules (or worse, denies HPE an opportunity to edit any briefing that relied on Oracle’s outdated reports) would work substantial prejudice against HPE and unreasonably burden the court,” Tigar wrote in the court decision.
“...The court concludes that Oracle’s attempt to supplement its expert reports is untimely,” the court decision stated.
Oracle has failed to provide sufficient justification for the five-month delay its deposition and the motion to supplement, the court noted in its decision.
“Oracle lays the blame on opposing counsel, arguing that its motion was delayed by a three-month meet-and-confer process seeking HPE’s stipulation to the proposed changes,” Tigar wrote in the court decision.
“A party’s preference for a different schedule than the one actually imposed by the court does not itself amount to ‘substantial justification’ for later amendments to expert reports served in accordance with deadlines set by the court,” the court decision stated.
Oracle originally filed the complaint on March 22, 2016, claiming copyright infringement and state law violations against HPE.
According to the court decision, Oracle filed a motion to exclude expert testimony from Vincent Cohan, Daniel McGavock and Ronald Schnell in June 2018. HPE filed its motion to exclude expert testimony from James Pampinella and Christian Hicks.
“Oracle now seeks to supplement the expert reports of Christian Hicks and Dr. Benjamin Goldberg,” according to the court decision.
HPE accepts some of the amendments put forward by Oracle but opposes the motion.
“HPE argues that, by these proposed amendments, ‘Oracle is attempting to fill in deficiencies in its expert reports that HPE identified in its summary judgment,” the court decision noted.
The defendant has also requested that should the court granted the motion, HPE is given the chance to rebut the expert opinions, depose the experts as well as amend one of its motions and its summary judgment briefing.