Motive says court has no basis to grant Omnitracs’ request for retrial

“In lieu of actual non-infringement evidence, Motive relied on a host of improper and irrelevant assertions designed to prejudice the jury against Omnitracs,” stated Omnitracs’ motion for a retrial. “When cross examining Omnitracs’ technical expert, for instance, Motive lobbed an accusation that Omnitracs (and its witness) were racially and religiously insensitive for not explaining that Motive’s co-founder allegedly used an American-sounding email alias to avoid discrimination from truck drivers against Muslim[s].”

“There may not be a more prejudicial statement to make to a jury in the Northern District of California, particularly when one of the jurors was born and raised in and wore a head scarf every day of trial.”

Additionally, Omnitracs claimed that Motive violated court orders regarding the disclosure of Motive’s legal investigation.

In Thursday’s response, Motive stated that its cross-examination of an Omnitracs expert about a Motive employee who used an American-sounding alias rather than the employee’s real name “to better interface with truckers” was supported by the record, “did not violate any stipulation, and was not prejudicial.”

“Accordingly, such testimony does not even come close to a ‘miscarriage of justice’ and provides no basis for a new trial,” Motive stated.

Motive also disputed Omnitracs’ allegation that it violated the court’s pretrial order when asking a witness a question that “revealed text had been redacted” from a letter between Motive and an individual in October 2018.

“This allegation is demonstrably false,” Motive stated. “[The witness’] testimony is consistent with the unredacted portions of the letter. Critically, these redactions … were agreed by the parties. Additionally, Plaintiffs themselves admitted the October 15, 2018 letter into evidence.”

“Thus, not only did Plaintiffs not object, but they also admitted the evidence [that] they now allege prejudiced them,” Motive continued. “This alone precludes awarding a new trial.”