Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01166/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01166-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 08cv1166

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HANSEN BEVERAGE COMPANY, a

Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08-CV-1166-IEG (WVG)

ORDER REGARDING HANSEN

BEVERAGE COMPANY’S

OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE

JUDGE GALLO’S ORDER

DENYING REQUEST TO DEPOSE

DR. GAIL MAHADY

vs.

INNOVATION VENTURES, LLC dba

LIVING ESSENTIALS, a Michigan

corporation,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Hansen Beverage Company’s (“Hansen”) Objection to Magistrate

Judge William V. Gallo’s Order denying Hansen’s request to depose Dr. Gail Mahady, who was once

designated as a testifying expert, but was later de-designated. (Doc. No. 218.) For the reasons stated

herein, the Court declines to modify or set aside the Order.

BACKGROUND

This matter involves false advertising claims between two competitors in the energy drink

market, Hansen and Innovation Ventures, LLC d/b/a Living Essentials (“Living Essentials”).

On August 29, 2008, Living Essentials submitted the declaration of Dr. Mahady in opposition

to Hansen’s motion for preliminary injunction. Dr. Mahady opined as to the definition of “energy,”

the effects of certain ingredients, and whether Living Essentials’ energy shot product causes a

“crash.” Dr. Mahady also opined that the clinical study on the energy shot supported Living

Case 3:08-cv-01166-WVG Document 231 Filed 04/20/10 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Magistrate Judge Gallo ordered Hansen to file supplemental briefing on or before March 10,

2010.

2

Hansen filed its Objection before Magistrate Judge Gallo issued his March 22, 2010 Order.

Nevertheless, the Court reviews the March 22, 2010 Order to determine whether it is clearly erroneous

or contrary to law.

- 2 - 08cv1166

Essentials’ advertising claim that the product provides five hours of energy. The Court denied

Hansen’s motion for preliminary injunction, finding that there were disputed issues of fact as to the

definition of “energy” and as to the falsity of the “no crash” and 5-hour energy claims. (Doc. No. 38.)

In March of 2009, Living Essentials designated Dr. Mahady as a testifying expert witness.

Then, in December of 2009, Living Essentials de-designated Dr. Mahady as a testifying witness and

substituted a new testifying expert witness. At that time, Hansen had already obtained the documents

and things Dr. Mahady relied on in forming the opinions set forth in her declaration, but had not

deposed her. 

On February 11, 2010, Hansen requested to depose Dr. Mahady. On March 5, 2010,

Magistrate Judge Gallo issued a written order summarily denying the request absent supplemental

briefing showing exceptional circumstances. (Doc. No. 208.) On March 15, 2010, Hansen untimely

filed its supplemental briefing on the issue of exceptional circumstances.1

 Before Magistrate Judge

Gallo could consider the supplemental briefing, on March 19, 2010, Hansen filed the instant Objection

to the denial of its request.

After reviewing the supplemental briefing, Magistrate Judge Gallo issued an Order on March

22, 2010 (the “Order”) finding that Hansen had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances existed

to justify deposing Dr. Mahady, a non-testifying expert.2

DISCUSSION

Hansen files its Objection pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[w]hen

a pretrial matter not dispositive of the party’s claim . . . is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and

decide,” a party may object to a magistrate judge’s order “within 14 days of being served with a

copy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and

modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id.; 28 U.S.C.

Case 3:08-cv-01166-WVG Document 231 Filed 04/20/10 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

Hansen only explicitly raised this argument for the first time in its reply, and at most alluded

to it in its supplemental briefing and Objection. 

- 3 - 08cv1166

636(b)(1)(A).

Rule 26(b)(4)(B)(ii) provides that a party may not depose an opposing party’s non-testifying

expert absent exceptional circumstances: 

Ordinarily, a party may not, by interrogatories or deposition, discover facts known

or opinions held by an expert who has been retained or specially employed by

another party in anticipation of litigation or to prepare for trial and who is not

expected to be called as a witness at trial. But a party may do so only: 

. . . 

(ii) on showing exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the

party to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(B)(ii). Hansen argues that the exceptional circumstances test does not apply,

because Living Essentials waived the protections afforded to non-testifying experts under Rule 26 by

submitting Dr. Mahady’s declaration in opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction.

Magistrate Judge Gallo’s Order did not address the waiver issue.3

 However, the Court finds that

Magistrate Judge Gallo’s application of the exceptional circumstances test was not clearly erroneous

or contrary to law. 

“[T]he majority approach in federal jurisprudence is to allow the work product

protection/consultative privilege to be restored, even if a testifying expert witness’ designation is

withdrawn after his/her opinions have been disclosed.” Estate of Manship v. United States of

America, 240 F.R.D. 229, 237 (M.D.La. 2006); see also Intervet, Inc. v. Merial Limited, 2007 WL

1797643 (D. Neb. June 20, 2007) (no waiver of Rule 26(b)(4)(B) protection where plaintiff filed nontestifying expert’s declaration in a separate but related litigation, involving the same parties, in support

of a motion for preliminary injunction); FMC Corp. v. Vendo Co., 196 F. Supp. 2d 1023 (E.D. Cal.

2002) (applying exceptional circumstances test where non-testifying experts had disclosed reports and

opinions); Plymovent Corp. v. Air. Tech. Solutions, Inc., 243 F.R.D. 139 (D.N.J. 2007) (no waiver

where plaintiff attempted to rely on non-testifying expert’s videotape and report at a preliminary

injunction hearing and plaintiff voluntarily produced the videotape and report in discovery); In re

Shell Oil Refinery, 132 F.R.D. 437, 440 (E.D. La.1990) (no waiver where parties had exchanged

“preliminary” expert reports). While, arguably, it might be a different situation where the Court

Case 3:08-cv-01166-WVG Document 231 Filed 04/20/10 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 08cv1166

considered the de-designated expert’s opinion in a pretrial motion, Hansen cites no authority requiring

that the Court deem Rule 26(b)(4)(B) protection waived in this situation. 

 The Court further finds that Magistrate Judge Gallo’s conclusion that Hansen had not

demonstrated exceptional circumstances is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Hansen must

show “exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party to obtain facts or

opinions on the same subject by other means.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(B)(ii). Magistrate Judge

Gallo found no exceptional circumstances existed because Dr. Mahady is not the only expert available

in her field or on the particular subjects addressed in her declaration. Importantly, Dr. Mahady did

not perform any tests, and her opinion that the clinical study supports Living Essentials’ advertising

claim is not unique or incapable of replication. Magistrate Judge Gallo explained that the core dispute

between the parties continues to be whether Living Essentials’ energy shot provides five hours of

energy and “no crash.” Hansen will be able to depose Living Essentials’ new testifying experts, and

these experts will necessarily have to opine as to the same subjects as Dr. Mahady did in her

declaration in order for Living Essentials to defend the lawsuit and prevail on its counterclaims. In

its Objection, Hansen argues that exceptional circumstances exist because “[n]o other expert, no

matter how qualified, can explain the thought processes that Dr. Mahady went through in analyzing

this case and drafting her written expert report.” However, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge

Gallo’s determination that this does not constitute exceptional circumstances.

The Court also agrees with the finding that Hansen will not be prejudiced by the Court’s

disallowance of Dr. Mahady’s deposition. In addition to the reasons stated above, Magistrate Judge

Gallo explained that deposing Dr. Mahady would do little to aid Hansen. Dr. Mahady will not testify

at trial, and therefore there is no need to depose her in preparation for cross examination. Hansen had

the opportunity and need to depose Dr. Mahady nearly 18 months ago, but did not do so. In its

Objection, Hansen argues that it will suffer severe prejudice because it will be “deprived of the

opportunity to cross-examine the expert witness that helped persuade the Court to deny the motion

for preliminary injunction.” The Court finds this argument unpersuasive. 

//

//

Case 3:08-cv-01166-WVG Document 231 Filed 04/20/10 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 - 08cv1166

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Court declines to modify or set aside Magistrate Judge

Gallo’s denial of Hansen’s request to depose Dr. Mahady.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 20, 2010

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:08-cv-01166-WVG Document 231 Filed 04/20/10 Page 5 of 5