throbber
Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 391 Filed 01/11/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 29192
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`





`
`
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC
`
`v.
`
`HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD., ET AL.
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:15-CV-1274-JRG-RSP
`
`Pretrial Conference
`MAG. JUDGE ROY PAYNE PRESIDING
`January 11-12, 2017
`OPEN: 11:10 am ADJOURN: 4:40 pm
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See attached
`
`See attached
`
`Clint South
`
`Shelly Holmes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Becky Andrews
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF:
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS:
`
`
`LAW CLERK:
`
`
`
`
`COURT REPORTER:
`
`COURTROOM DEPUTY:
`
`Court opened. Case called. Rudy Fink announced ready for plaintiff and introduced co-counsel.
`Deron Dacus announced ready on behalf of Volkswagen and introduced co-counsel. Allen
`Gardner announced ready on behalf of Nissan and introduced co-counsel. Randy Akin
`announced ready on behalf of Honda and introduced co-counsel. Brian Craft announced ready on
`behalf of Hyundai/Kia and introduced co-counsel. Thad Heartfield announced ready on behalf of
`Toyota and introduced co-counsel.
`
`Jury Selection will be February 6, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Gilstrap. The Court informed
`the parties that there are several cases set on this docket. The parties informed the Court of
`several issues relating to a certain expert and a certain member of defendants’ counsel. The
`parties will be filing motions to continue the trial date.
`
`Paul Steadman argued Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Noncompliance with Marking
`Requirements (Dkt. No. 201). Peter Lambrianakos responded for plaintiff. The Court took this
`motion under submission.
`
`Jeff Wyatt then argued Motion to Strike Portions of the Rebuttal Expert Report of Joseph C.
`McAlexander III (Dkt. No. 212). Peter Lambrianakos responded. Bill Mandir also argued for
`defendants. The Court granted the motion for the reasons orally assigned.
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 391 Filed 01/11/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 29193
`
`After the lunch break, Michael Turner argued Volkswagen’s Motion to Exclude Certain
`Testimony Under Daubert and to Strike Certain Portions of the Reports of Joseph C.
`McAlexander III (Dkt. No. 237). Alfred Fabricant responded. The motion was denied.
`
`Bill Mandir argued Toyota’s Motion to Strike “Errata” to Expert Report of Joseph McAlexander
`on Infringement (Dkt. No. 253) and Toyota’s Motion to Strike Supplemental Expert Report (Dkt.
`No. 369). Peter Lambrianakos responded. The motions were denied.
`
`Raj Vinnakota moved to seal the transcript for this portion of the hearing. The Court took this
`request under advisement. Mr. Vinnakota then argued Nissan’s Motion to Strike New Expert
`Disclosures and Opposed Motion for Expedited Briefing (Dkt. No. 259). Shahar Harel
`responded.
`
`Albert Liou argued Honda’s Motion to Strike Blitzsafe’s New Infringement Theory (Dkt. No.
`252). The Court will take this motion up with the Motion for Summary Judgment briefing.
`
`The Court determined that the portion of the hearing that Mr. Vinnakota requested be sealed, did
`not have to be sealed. Mr. Vinnakota agreed.
`
`The parties then began argument on Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine.
`Fred Fabricant argued for plaintiff. Paul Steadman and Joe Beauchamp argued for defendants.
`John Rabena also argued for Toyota. The Court made rulings.
`
`This pretrial conference will continue tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. in the historic courtroom in
`the Harrison County Historic Courthouse.
`
`Thursday, January 12, 2017
`9:00 a.m. – 12:45 p.m.
`Court Reporter – Melissa Bailey
`
`Court opened. The parties introduced themselves.
`
`The Court heard Plaintiff’s objections to Defendant, Volkswagen’s Motions in Limine. Alfred
`Fabricant argued for plaintiff. Deron Dacus responded for defendant. The Court made rulings.
`
`The Court then heard argument on objections to Defendant, Hyundai/Kia’s Motions in Limine.
`Paul Steadman argued for defendants. Alfred Fabricant argued for plaintiff. The Court made
`rulings.
`
`The parties then argued objections to Defendant, Nissan’s Motions in Limine. Sean Hsu, Raj
`Vinnakota and Glenn Janik argued for defendant. Alfred Fabricant argued for plaintiff. Shahar
`Harel also responded for plaintiff. The Court made rulings.
`
`After the morning break. Mr. Harel continued.
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01274-JRG-RSP Document 391 Filed 01/11/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 29194
`
`The Court then heard objections to Defendant, Honda’s Motions in Limine. Joe Beauchamp and
`Robert Kantner argued for defendant. Alfred Fabricant argued for plaintiff. Sam Baxter also
`responded. The Court made rulings.
`
`The Court then heard objections to Defendant, Toyota’s Motions in Limine. John Rabena, Gil
`Gillam and Thad Heartfield argued for defendant. Peter Lambrianakos and Alfred Fabricant
`argued for plaintiff. The Court made rulings.
`
`The Court instructed the parties to confer with the courtroom deputy to get a date for each interim
`pretrial conference to cover exhibit objections.
`
`After the break, Bill Mandir argued Toyota’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel (Dkt. No. 143).
`Alfred Fabricant responded. The Court took this motion under advisement.
`
`Court adjourned.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket