Nuance Communications, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation
Plaintiff: Nuance Communications, Inc.
Defendant: International Business Machines Corporation
Case Number: 7:2016cv05173
Filed: June 30, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: White Plains Office
County: XX Out of State
Presiding Judge: Kenneth M. Karas
Nature of Suit: Other Contract
Cause of Action: 28:1332
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
February 19, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 270 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that closing arguments in this case shall occur on March 1, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 15A, James A. Byrne United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 2/18/2021) (kv)
February 16, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 269 ORDER MEMORANDUM granting in part and denying in part 233 Motion to Strike document from the record. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: This is a contract case under New York law. The case was tried non-jury. Currently before the Court is the adm issibility of certain pieces of evidence that the Court admitted subject to motions to strike. Principally, the parties dispute the admissibility of several pieces of extrinsic evidence. Extrinsic evidence includes (1) "the acts and circumstance s surrounding execution of the ambiguous term," (2) "conversations, negotiations and agreements made prior to or contemporaneous with the execution of a written [agreement]," and (3) "the parties' course of conduct throughout the life of the contract. GE Funding Cap. Mkt. Servs., Inc. v. Neb. Inv. Fin. Auth., No. 15-1069, 2017 WL 2880555, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2017) (alteration in original), affd, 767 F. App'x 110 (2d Cir. 2019). IBM moves to strike several state ments made by Nuances witnesses because they contain hearsay, are not based on personal knowledge, or are irrelevant. IBM's Mot. Strike, ECF No. 235. Nuance responds that IBM has waived these objections by not raising them during trial. Nuance&# 039;s Resp. to Mot. Strike, ECF No. 240. IBM did not forfeit the objections raised in this motion to strike by not raising them at trial because the Court indicated that it would allow evidence to come into the record subject to motions to strike. Ex . Objs. Order, ECF No. 225; see United States v. Asare, No. 15-cv-3556, 2019 WL 10854305, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2019) ("[T]he law favors admission of evidence in non-jury trials[,] and [the Court's] own practice for bench trials is to ta ke evidence subject to a subsequent motion to strike" (quoting Refinement Int'l Co. v. Eastbourne N.V., 815 F. Supp. 738, 740 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)), aff'd, 25 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 1994). IBM's motion is denied in part as it relates to sta tements by Nuance executives about Nuance's pre-contractual (or contemporaneous with execution) expectations of the meaning of the SLA, see Petro Decl. 11; Trial Tr. 107:10-108:18, 108:23- 109:10, Feb. 18, 2020; Bloom Decl. 27, and granted in part as it relates to statements concerning Nuance's post-contractual understanding of the meaning of certain clauses in the SLA, see Petro Decl. 14-15. The pre-contractual statements are not offered for the truth of the matter, but to demonstr ate Nuance executives' purpose in entering into the agreement. See United States v. Leonard-Allen, 739 F.3d 948, 954 (7th Cir. 2013). These statements tend to show that Nuance's primary purpose in the deal was to obtain commercially usable code and this purpose was communicated to IBM. Thus, these statements are relevant in construing the contract. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 202 (Am. L. Inst. 1981); accord Rockland Exposition, Inc. v. All. of Auto. Serv. Providers of N.J., 706 F. Supp. 2d 350, 359 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Accordingly, the Court will rule on each specific statement as follows: as further set forth herein. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 2/16/2021) (kv)
February 12, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 268 ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall attend a status conference on February 17, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. to discuss an appropriate date for closing arguments. The parties shall call in as follows: 571-353-2300, Code: 728 193 472#. (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 2/12/2021) ( Telephone Conference set for 2/17/2021 at 02:00 PM before Judge Eduardo C Robreno.) (ks)
October 14, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 263 ORDER: AND NOW, this 14th day of October, 2020, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall submit supplemental briefing on the following issues: Plaintiff shall submit a brief on the remedies issue and Defendant shall submit a brief on the statute o f limitations issue by October 29, 2020. Plaintiff shall submit a response brief on the statute of limitations issue and Defendant shall submit a response brief on the remedies issue by November 13, 2020. Each brief is not to exceed 20 double-spaced pages. And as set forth herein. AND IT IS SO ORDERED., ( Brief due by 10/29/2020., Responses due by 11/13/2020) (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 10/14/2020) (ama)
September 2, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 258 ORDER: AND NOW, this 2nd day of September, 2020, it is hereby ORDERED that Daniela Kirsztajn is withdrawn as counsel of record for Plaintiff. Ms. Kirsztajn will be removed or marked withdrawn from the case docket, the Clerk shall terminate the delive ry of all Notices of Electronic Filing addressed to Daniela.Kirsztajn@weil.com, and her name shall be removed from any applicable service lists. AND IT IS SO ORDERED., Attorney Daniela Kirsztajn terminated. (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 9/02/2020) (ama)
July 31, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 251 ORDER: AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2020, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The parties shall submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, with pinpoint citations to the record, by August 24, 2020; 2. The parties shall submit memoranda, of less than twenty pages in length, setting forth the legal and factual support for their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, with pinpoint citations to the record, by August 24, 2020; 3. The parties shall submit memoranda setting forth the relevant and determinative issues (no more than five issues) and discussing the support for their positions on each issue, limited to one page for each issue, with pinpoint citations to the record, by September 7, 2020; and 4. The Court will set a date for closing arguments at alater time. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 7/31/2020) (ama)
July 6, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 249 ORDER: AND NOW, this 6th day of July, 2020, it is hereby ORDERED that a telephone conference will be held on July 20, 2020, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno, and all parties are to call in to the conference call center at 888-684 -8852 and use the access code 4218221#. The purpose of the conference is to discuss final logistical arrangements for the trial date of July 28, 2020. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer to determine the feasibility of, and a protocol for, proceeding with the expert witness testimony portion of the bench trial through a virtual medium, and the parties shall present to the Court a written proposed protocol by July 16, 2020. The proposal should suggest dates, no later than August 21, 2020, for the virtual expert witness testimony proceedings. AND IT IS SO ORDERED., ( Telephone Conference set for 7/20/2020 at 02:00 PM before Judge Eduardo C Robreno.) (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 7/06/2020) (ama)
June 29, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 248 ORDER: AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2020, it is hereby ORDERED that the bench trial in this case will proceed with one day of live testimony on July 28, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 13B, U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pen nsylvania. All remaining fact witnesses (not expert witnesses) shall testify on this day. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the following attorneys remain attached for trial on July 28, 2020: David J. Lender, Esq., Jessica L. Falk, Esq., Kevin S. Reed, Esq., and Elinor C. Sutton, Esq. ( Bench Trial set for 7/28/2020 at 09:00 AM before Judge Eduardo C Robreno.) (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 6/29/2020) (cf)
June 5, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 247 ORDER: AND NOW, this 5th day of June, 2020, it is hereby ORDERED that a telephone status conference is scheduled for Tuesday, June 24, 2020 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno, to discuss resuming trial and other related matters. Counsel shall call-in as follows: 888-684-8852, Access Code: 4218221#. (Telephone Conference set for 6/24/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Eduardo C Robreno.) (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 6/5/2020) (jca)
May 8, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 246 ORDER: AND NOW, this 8th day of May, 2020, it is herebyORDERED that the trial in this case, previously scheduled for May 18, 2020, is CONTINUED until July 27, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 15A, U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pen nsylvania. It is FURTHER ORDERED that as of May 8, 2020, the following attorneys are attached for trial on July 27, 2020: David J. Lender, Esq., Jessica L. Falk, Esq., Kevin S. Reed, Esq., and Elinor C. Sutton, Esq. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. (Bench Trial set for 7/27/2020 at 09:30 AM before Judge Eduardo C Robreno.) (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 5/8/2020) (jca)
April 8, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 245 ORDER: AND NOW, this 8th day of April, 2020, it is hereby ORDERED that a telephone status conference is scheduled for Monday, May 4 at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno, to discuss resuming trial and other related matters. Counsel shall call-in as follows: 888-684-8852, Access Code: 4218221#. ( Telephone Conference set for 5/4/2020 at 02:00 PM before Judge Eduardo C Robreno.) (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 4/8/2020) (mro)
March 23, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 244 ORDER: AND NOW, this 23rd day of March, 2020, it is hereby ORDERED that the trial in this case, previously scheduled for April 6, 2020, is CONTINUED until May 18, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 15A, U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. (Bench Trial set for 5/18/2020 at 09:30 AM before Judge Eduardo C Robreno.) (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 3/23/2020) (jca)
March 16, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 242 ORDER: AND NOW, this 16th day of March, 2020, it is hereby ORDERED that in the event that the April 6, 2020, trial date cannot be met, the trial will be held on May 18, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 15A, U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. (Bench Trial set for 5/18/2020 at 09:30 AM before Judge Eduardo C Robreno.) (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 3/16/2020) (jca)
March 13, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 241 ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the trial in this case will be CONTINUED until April 6, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 15A, U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 3/13/2020) (rro)
March 12, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 237 ORDER: AND NOW, this 12th day of March, 2020, after considering Nuance's Letter Objection to Untimely Hicks Declaration (ECF No. 189), IBMs Letter Opposition to Nuance's Motion to Strike Hicks Rebuttal Declaration (ECF No. 192), Nuance&# 039;s Letter Reply in Support of Nuance's Objection to Hicks Declaration (ECF No. 194), and IBMs Letter Reply in Opposition to Nuance's Objection to Hicks Declaration (ECF No. 195), it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Objection to Hickss Second Declaration is OVERRULED; and 2. Nuance is GRANTED LEAVE to call its expert witness for a surrebuttal. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 3/12/2020) (jca)
February 27, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 228 ORDER: AND NOW, this 27th day of February, 2020, it is hereby ORDERED that this case will be LISTED for trial on March 16, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 15A, U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. AND IT IS SO ORDERED., Bench Trial set for 3/16/2020 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 15A, before Judge Eduardo C Robreno. (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 2/27/2020) (rj)
February 14, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 227 ORDER granting 208 Motion in Limine. AND NOW, this 13th day of February, 2020, after considering IBM's Motion to Strike Hearsay Testimony (ECF No. 208), IBM's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Strike Hearsay Testimon y (ECF No. 209), Nuance's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Strike Hearsay Testimony (ECF No. 219), and IBM's Motion to File Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Hearsay Testimony (ECF No. 222), it is hereby ORDERED that IB M's Motion to Strike Hearsay Testimony (ECF No. 208) is GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that consistent with Nuance's Letter (ECF No. 221), the Declaration of Jeanne McCann is STRICKEN. (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 2/13/2020) (mro)
February 13, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 225 ORDER: AND NOW, this 13th day of February, 2020, it is hereby ORDERED that all the parties' objections to exhibits on the basis of relevance, foundation, and completeness are OVERRULED without prejudice. Objections to exhibits on the basis of hearsay will be decided when the exhibits are moved into evidence at trial. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 2/13/2020) (jca)
December 16, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 205 ORDER: AND NOW, this 16th day of December, 2019, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall submit written narratives setting forth witness testimony, witness lists indicating the order of live testimony, and any supplemental pretrial materials by January 13, 2020. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 12/16/2019) (jca)
November 26, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 203 ORDER, AND NOW, this 25th day of November, 2019, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. This case will be LISTED for trial, in the Charles L. Brieant Federal Building and Courthouse in White Plains, to begin on February 18, 2020, at 9:30 a.m., in a courtroo m to be designated on that day, and will continue daily through February 21, 2020; and 2. Expert testimony and any additional fact witnesses not previous heard during the week of February 18, 2020, will be heard, in the Charles L. Brieant Federal Building and Courthouse in White Plains, beginning on April 6, 2020, at 9:30 a.m., in a courtroom to be designated on that day, and will continue daily through April 10, 2020, as may be necessary. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. (Bench Trial set for 2/18/2020 at 09:30 AM before Judge Eduardo C Robreno.) (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 11/25/19) (yv)
November 21, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 202 ORDER: AND NOW, this 21st day of November, 2019, it is hereby ORDERED that the trial scheduled for December 9, 2019 is CONTINUED until further order of the Court. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 11/21/2019) (jca)
November 19, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 201 ORDER: AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 2019, it is hereby ORDERED that a telephone status conference will be held on November 20, 2019, at 4:00 p.m. before the Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno. David Lender, Esquire, shall place the call directly to Chambers (215-597-4073) once all participating parties are on the line. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. (Telephone Conference set for 11/20/2019 at 04:00 PM before Judge Eduardo C Robreno.) (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 11/19/2019) (jca)
November 14, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 198 ORDER TO SEAL DOCUMENTS: This matter having come before the Court by way of Defendant International Business Machines Corporation and Plaintiff Nuance Communications, Inc.'s (together, the "Parties") request to allow the filing und er seal of witness declarations that have been previously submitted to this Court and any exhibits thereto. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Parties' request is granted and the Parties should file redacted versions of the witness declarations and exhibits thereto on the public docket and unredacted versions of the same under seal. (Signed by Judge Eduardo C Robreno on 11/14/2019) (rro) Modified on 11/14/2019 (rro).
May 7, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 150 AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Nuance's Motion for Summary Judgment, and grants in part and denies in part IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment. Nuance's claim for breach of the implied covenant o f good faith and fair dealing is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending Motions. (See Dkt. Nos. 116, 120.) The Court will hold a Status Conference on Tuesday, June 18, 2019, at 11:30 a.m. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 5/6/2019) (jca)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Nuance Communications, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Nuance Communications, Inc.
Represented By: David Lender
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: International Business Machines Corporation
Represented By: Kevin Samuel Reed
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?