Sinco Technologies Pte Ltd. v. Sinco Electronics (Dongguan) Co. Ltd.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD., Case No. 17-cv-05517-EMC
Plaintiff,
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN
v. LIMINE NO.
SINCO ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN) CO. LTD., et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 The Court has received the parties’ supplemental briefs regarding SinCo’s MIL No. 2. See Docket No. 507, 516. Having considered such, the Court hereby rules as follows. 1. SinCo suggests that the Court has erroneously placed the burden on SinCo to prove a lack of prejudice. See Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2001) (rejecting defendant’s argument that “the burden of proving harm is on the party seeking sanctions; . . . [i]mplicit in Rule 37(c)(1) is that the burden is on the party facing sanctions to prove harmlessness”). The Court has not placed any such burden on SinCo. Defendants made specific arguments as to why SinCo was not prejudiced as a result of disclosures made after the close of fact discovery in January…