Waymo LLC v. Uber Techs., Inc. - No. C 17-00939 WHA, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16020 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2018)

Rule:

Evidence will not be permitted to the extent that it becomes cumulative, invites improper speculation, vilifies defendant without proving much else, or threatens to overwhelm the trial and distract from the merits of the case. Nor will the Court short-circuit the ordinary process of proof in a jury trial by ushering in such "evidence" through adverse-inference instructions.

Facts:

This lawsuit for trade secret misappropriation suffers from a deluge of accusations by Plaintiff Waymo LLC that defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., and Ottomotto LLC (collectively, "Uber") tossed out evidence and engaged in litigation misconduct. This order addressed the extent to which the jury will be allowed to hear those accusations and the proof behind them.

Issue:

Should Waymo's requests for an adverse-inference be granted?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court, in addressing the extent to which the jury will be allowed to hear those accusations and the proof behind them, held the following: the Court itself will inform the jury that, despite the expedited discovery and provisional relief orders, Uber failed to timely disclose the destruction of the five discs and repeatedly supplemented both its communications log and accounting after the ordered deadlines. The Court will instruct the jury that it may, but need not, draw any adverse inference from these facts, and will further explain that the nature of any adverse inference likewise remains up to the jury. Next, evidence of Uber's litigation misconduct or corporate culture may be relevant and admissible insofar as it reasonably bears on the merits of this case. This includes evidence and argument that Waymo has been unable to find stronger proof of its claims due to Uber's obstruction tactics. But such evidence will not be allowed to consume the trial to the point that it becomes a distraction from the merits or turns into a public exercise in character assassination. Again, the point is to maintain a fair balance between allowing Waymo to reasonably explain any weaknesses in its case on the one hand, and preventing Waymo from sidestepping its burden of proof by inflaming the jury against Uber on the other. Lastly, all other subjects not expressly ruled out herein (or in earlier orders) may be pursued via qualified and properly-disclosed witnesses and evidence. Additionally, even evidence excluded under FRE 403 herein may become admissible if the opposing side opens the door. In a similar vein, this order is without prejudice to the possibility that, depending on how events unfold at trial, the balance of considerations may sua sponte shift so as to warrant a second look at rulings made under FRE 403 herein.