Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cuker Interactive, LLC, 5:14-CV-5262. (2017)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20170515756
Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 08, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 08, 2017
Summary: ORDER ON ALEX ALEXANDER (5/20/2015) DEPOSITION TESTIMONY TIMOTHY L. BROOKS , District Judge . Now before the Court is the Parties' Joint Motion to Exclude Deposition Testimony of ALEX ALEXANDER (5/20/15) (Doc. 343). Mr. Alexander was employed by Wal-Mart during the project as ASDA's Director of Multi-Channel Technology. Having read the "color-coded" passages of the deposition transcript submitted to chambers, and having been advised by the parties' objections and responses to certain dep
Summary: ORDER ON ALEX ALEXANDER (5/20/2015) DEPOSITION TESTIMONY TIMOTHY L. BROOKS , District Judge . Now before the Court is the Parties' Joint Motion to Exclude Deposition Testimony of ALEX ALEXANDER (5/20/15) (Doc. 343). Mr. Alexander was employed by Wal-Mart during the project as ASDA's Director of Multi-Channel Technology. Having read the "color-coded" passages of the deposition transcript submitted to chambers, and having been advised by the parties' objections and responses to certain depo..
More
ORDER ON ALEX ALEXANDER (5/20/2015) DEPOSITION TESTIMONY
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS, District Judge.
Now before the Court is the Parties' Joint Motion to Exclude Deposition Testimony of ALEX ALEXANDER (5/20/15) (Doc. 343). Mr. Alexander was employed by Wal-Mart during the project as ASDA's Director of Multi-Channel Technology. Having read the "color-coded" passages of the deposition transcript submitted to chambers, and having been advised by the parties' objections and responses to certain deposition testimony, the Court finds that the Joint Motion (Doc. 343) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court's rulings on the Parties' respective line item objections are as follows:
DOC. 343
Obj. Excerpt Page and Line Ruling Additional Explanation
1 5 P35:19-P40:23 Overruled Relevant and probative of Cuker's trade
secrets claim.
2 6 P41:18-P44:8 Overruled Relevant and probative of Cuker's trade
secrets claims
3 7 P44:19-P45:22 Overruled Relevant and probative of Cuker's trade
secrets claim.
4 8 P46:12-P46:23 Overruled Relevant and probative of Cuker's trade
P47:18-P48:17 secrets claim.
5 9 P51:17-P53:15 Overruled Relevant and probative of Cuker's trade
secrets claim.
6 10 P56:22-P59:5 Overruled Relevant and probative of Cuker's trade
secrets claim.
7 11 P61:17-P62:9 Overruled Relevant and probative of Cuker's trade
secrets claim.
8 13 P70:9-P70:18 Sustained The Parties agree to add the question at
P70 Lines 5-8.
9 14 P74:22-P75:1 Sustained The Parties agree to delete the question
and objection at P74 Line 22 through
P75 Line 1.
10 25 & 26 P115:4-P115:19 Overruled Overruled as to Excerpt 25. P115 Lines
P115:21-P116:20 in Part, 4-19 will be allowed because the word
"template" is an industry-specific term.
The witness possesses specialized
knowledge from which he may explain
the generic meaning of that term to the
jury. See the Court's prior Order at Doc.
379, p. 14.
Sustained But the objection to Excerpt 26 is
in Part Sustained. P115 line 21 through P116
line 20 will be excluded. Although the
generic explanation of the term is
permissible, the witness' testimony as to
pre-contract discussions with Cuker is
inadmissable parol evidence.
11 34 P145:9-P148:25 Overruled The witness held a Director level position
with direct oversight responsibility of the
project in question. In a case where: (1)
Wal-Mart contends that Cuker's lack of
performance constitutes a breach; and
(2) Cuker contends that it provided Wal-Mart
with non-work-product confidential
information that Wal-Mart later
misappropriated; the knowledge of this
witness as to what Cuker did or did not
provide to Wal-Mart (or the mere fact that
he does not know one way or the other)
is relevant and probative of fact issues in
the case, and also goes to the witness'
credibility.
12 35 P158:12-P159:16 Sustained The testimony at P158 Line 12 through
in Part, P159 Line 9 will be excluded.
Overruled The testimony at P159 Line 10 beginning
in Part with the question "You did not yourself . . ."
through P159 Line 16 will be allowed.
The witness' answers in the first part of
the passage are non-responsive. But his
responses to the last two questions are
direct, relevant, and probative.
13 37 P168:11-P168:23 Sustained Rules 602 and 403. Although potentially
relevant to Cuker's trade secrets claim,
the witness lacks sufficient knowledge
as to the extent and timing of
responsiveness that Wal-Mart brought to
those other websites. The potential for
confusion and misleading the jury
substantially outweighs the probative
value.
14 40 P176:12-P178:2 Sustained Rule 403. Cuker's question is essentially
asking the witness to construe and
endorse Cuker's interpretation of
sections 3 and 4 of the contract in a
manner that is inconsistent with and
much broader than how the Court has
construed the contract as a matter of law.
See Doc 23, p.6 and Doc. 197, pp. 17-18
and p. 25.
15 42 P180:3-P182:5 Overruled The witness held a Director level position
with direct oversight responsibility of the
project in question. In a case where: (1)
Wal-Mart contends that Cuker's lack of
performance constitutes a breach; and
(2) Cuker contends that it provided Wal-Mart
with non-work-product confidential
information that Wal-Mart later
misappropriated; the knowledge of this
witness as to what Cuker did or did not
provide to Wal-Mart (or the mere fact that
he does not know one way or the other)
is relevant and probative of fact issues in
the case, and also goes to the witness'
credibility.
16 43 P196:24-P197:19 Sustained Rules 401, 403, and 602. The Court has
previously addressed this issue in the
context of a sanctions motion. See Doc.
226. Wal-Mart's document retention
policies — and whether it did or did not
follow them — is not relevant to a fact
issue to be submitted to the jury.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
