Blockchain Innovation, LLC v. Franklin Resources, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Defendants’ motion for reconsideration in Blockchain Innovation, LLC v. Franklin Resources, Inc. Defendants sought reconsideration of rulings concerning objections to a declaration and the striking of expert rebuttal opinions. The Court held that Defendants’ arguments regarding the declaration were waived or improperly raised for the first time, and that the declaration did not justify reinstating the expert reports.

Holdings

1. Reconsideration was not warranted because defendants raised the Rule 702 argument for the first time on reconsideration and had previously argued the opposite—that Trombley's statements were based only on personal knowledge and were insufficient for summary judgment.
2. Trombley may testify as a lay witness about his personal knowledge and experience, including admissible lay opinions under Rule 701, but may not testify that the alleged trade secrets were unique in the industry or that no other companies developed them when those opinions are not rationally based on his perception.
3. The admission of the Trombley Declaration did not create a material difference in fact or law warranting reconsideration of the order striking the Kim Report and portions of the Melvin Report.
4. Defendants waived their substantial-justification argument by failing to raise it in opposition to the original motion to strike, and the court rejected the proposed new rebuttal-report process because it would disrupt the case schedule and substantially burden Blockchain.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants were entitled to reconsideration of the court's ruling overruling their objections to the Trombley Declaration based on an argument that the declaration contained expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
2. Whether the later admission of the Trombley Declaration constituted a material difference in fact or law warranting reconsideration of the order striking the Kim Report and portions of the Melvin Report as improper rebuttal opinions.
3. Whether defendants could assert substantial justification for serving the Kim and Melvin reports as rebuttal reports, or propose a new rebuttal-report process, for the first time on reconsideration.

Disposition

other