United States District Court, D. Oregon
J. Haynie Stephen English Julia E. Markley PERKINS COIE, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
G. Klevorn Bruce G. Vanyo Yonaton M. Rosenzweig Jeffrey A.
Finn Richard H. Zelichov KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN, LLP
L. Ross Robert A. Shlachter Timothy S. DeJong STOLL STOLL
BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER, PC Attorneys for Defendants
OPINION & ORDER
A. HERNÁNDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Amdocs Management Limited and Amdocs, Inc. bring this Motion
to Exclude and Strike Plaintiff's Late Identified Alleged
Trade Secrets . For the reasons that follow, the Court
grants in part Defendants' motion.
Vesta, an electronic payments and fraud prevention technology
company, has sued Defendants Amdocs Management Limited and
Amdocs, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”),
telephone billing software and services companies, for breach
of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. Fourth Am.
Compl. (“FAC”) Intro., ECF 405. Beginning in
2006, the parties collaborated with one another to integrate
their services and platforms in order to appeal to their
shared customer base. Id. at ¶ 11. In 2009, the
parties began working jointly to market their respective
services. Id. at ¶ 12. Since 2010, Defendants
have twice approached Plaintiff about the possibility of
Defendants acquiring Plaintiff. Id.
parties entered into a series of
Non-disclosure/Confidentiality Agreements to preserve their
confidentiality while sharing information in their effort to
develop these joint services and products. Id. at
¶¶ 13-15. The first non-disclosure agreement was
entered into in 2006, and confidential information was
exchanged in connection with joint projects for customers
such as MetroPCS, Vodafone, T-Mobile, and Boost Mobile.
Id. at ¶¶ 21-22.
alleges that Defendants breached these non-disclosure
agreements and stole trade secrets that were shared in the
course of this collaboration. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges
that in the course of jointly collaborating on marketing and
the possibility of the acquisition of Plaintiff by
Defendants, Plaintiff shared “highly confidential and
proprietary information, ” which Defendants used and
relied upon “improperly to create, price and sell a
competing product in order to increase its profits.”
Id. at Intro. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
“used [their] knowledge of Vesta's Confidential
Solution Methods and Vesta's Confidential Risk
Information to displace Vesta and take over payment
processing services for all of Sprint's prepaid brands
(Sprint, Boost Mobile, Virgin Mobile, and Assurance).”
Id. at ¶ 64. As a result of Defendants'
misappropriation and breach of contract, Plaintiff alleges it
“suffered lost profits and royalties on various
accounts, including MetroPCS, Sprint and T-Mobile.”
Id. at ¶¶ 79, 85, 95, 108.
current motion revolves around an issue that is not
unfamiliar to this Court: the definition of Plaintiff's
trade secrets. Defendants have twice moved to compel a more
particular disclosure of Plaintiff's trade secrets.
Defs.' Mot. Prot. Order, ECF 141; Defs.' Mot.
Evid'y Sanc., ECF 182. On both occasions, this Court has
required Plaintiff to describe its trade secrets with
reasonable particularity. Opinion & Order, November 30,
2015, ECF 141; Opinion & Order, April 1, 2016, ECF 219
(“April O&O”). On April 26, 2016, Plaintiff
complied with the Court's order by supplementing its
response with a “three-column, 22-page chart listing 19
categories of technical information, plus a description of
its alleged trade secret methods, code or architecture within
the categories.” Defs.' Mot. Exclude & Strike
Trade Secrets 5 (“Defs.' Mot.”), ECF 483;
Rosenzweig Decl. Ex. 5, ECF 484.
discovery ended on June 6, 2017. Throughout the summer, the
parties engaged in expert discovery, and on July 24 and 25,
2017, Plaintiff disclosed three expert reports that
Defendants assert contain new trade secrets. Defs.' Mot.
7. Specifically at issue are portions of the expert reports
of Rene Pelegero, George Edwards, and Stephen Kursh.
Rosenzweig Decl. ¶ 20; Haynie Decl. Exs. F
(“Edwards Report”), G (“Kursh
Report”), M (“Pelegero Report”), ECF 505.
Defendants challenge the experts' discussion of ten
documents that allegedly constitute four new trade secrets:
(1) 2010 emails regarding a joint pitch to MetroPCS;
(2) The “Payments Architecture” slideshow;
(3) Version 0.2 of the Vesta Scope of Services document; and
(4) The 2008 API for Boost ...