`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN VEHICLE CONTROL SYSTEMS,
`VEHICLES CONTAINING THE SAME, AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`ORDER NO. 56:
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1235
`
`
`DENYING COMPLAINANTS’ MOTION FOR
`RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER NO. 53 [1235-067]
`
`(September 27, 2021)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On September 20, 2021, Complainants Jaguar Land Rover Limited and Jaguar Land
`
`Rover North America, LLC (“JLR”) moved for a reconsideration (“Motion”) of the decision in
`
`Order No. 53 with respect to Mr. Sidders and JLR’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to exclude his
`
`testimony. (Motion Docket No. 1235-067; Motion at 1.).
`
`
`
`On September 21, 2021, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.,
`
`Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A.,
`
`Automobili Lamborghini America, LLC, Audi AG and Audi of America, LLC (collectively,
`
`“Respondents”) filed their opposition (“Opposition”) to JLR’s Motion. (Doc. ID No. 752203;
`
`Opposition at 1.).
`
`
`
`JLR claims that Order No. 53 contains two (2) factual errors: (1) that JLR did not file
`
`papers in opposition to Dana’s Motion to Quash with respect to Mr. Sidders’ testimony; and (2)
`
`that JLR had an opportunity to depose Mr. Sidders but chose not to do so. (Motion at 1.).
`
`
`
`As Respondents note, “A motion for reconsideration may be granted based on: (1) an
`
`intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to
`
`correct a clear error of law or fact or prevent manifest injustice.” (See Opp’n at 1 (citing Certain
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`Road Milling Machines and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1067, Order No. 24 at 1
`
`(Feb. 28, 2018); Impax Lab'ys Inc. v. Lannett Holdings Inc., 893 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018) (“A factual finding is only clearly erroneous if, despite some supporting evidence, we are
`
`left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”).).
`
`
`
`There are no factual errors that would change the outcome of the decisions contained in
`
`Order No. 53 even though Order No. 53 mistakenly failed to recognize that JLR filed its
`
`Response to Non-Party Dana Inc.’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Ad Testificandum to Dana
`
`Employee Jason Sidders (Mot. No. 1235-061) (“JLR’s Resp.”), Doc. ID No. 751129 at 1, 3 (Sep.
`
`7, 2021).). However, Each of JLR’s arguments in its motions in limine was considered based
`
`upon all the information submitted, including the information provided with respect to the efforts
`
`that were made: to obtain Mr. Sidders’ Declaration, his deposition, and conversations with him.
`
`(Opp’n at 2, 3.). JLR could have moved to enforce the subpoena ad testificandum, issued to him.
`
`The rationales for denying JLR’s MIL No. 1 is contained in Order Nos. 53 and 54 together.
`
`To address another point JLR raised in its Motion, my Ground Rules do not require that a
`
`witness who may be called to testify during an evidentiary hearing (“Hearing”) be deposed
`
`beforehand.
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, JLR’s Motion for Reconsideration, Motion Docket No. 1235-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`067, is denied.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
