Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01584/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01584-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

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 - 06cv1584

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIGHTON COLLECTIBLES, INC., a

California corporation,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06-CV-1584 H (POR)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S

PROPOSED AMENDED

WITNESS LIST

vs.

MARC CHANTAL USA, INC., a Texas

corporation; MARC CHANTAL

AMERICA, INC., a Texas corporation;

and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

On April 7, 2008, Plaintiff filed an amended witness list in accordance with Rule

26(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 153.) On April 22, 2008,

Defendant filed objections to Plaintiff’s proposed witness list, arguing that Plaintiff never

disclosed certain witnesses either in its initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1)(I) or in

supplemental disclosures under Rule 26(e)(1)(A). (Doc. No. 155.) The Court referred the

parties to the magistrate judge to issue a report and recommendation regarding Plaintiff’s

undisclosed witnesses. (Doc. No. 164.)

Prior to the conference before the magistrate judge, the parties met and conferred; as

a result, only five of Plaintiff’s proposed witnesses remained in dispute: Beth Barror, Jerry

Kohl, Monica Bolin, Richard Lewis and Paul Widosch. On June 10, 2008, the magistrate

judge issued a report and recommendation. (Doc. No. 175.) The magistrate judge

Case 3:06-cv-01584-H-POR Document 182 Filed 08/28/08 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 - 06cv1584

recommended as follows:

1. Ms. Barror and Mr. Kohl should not be excluded as witnesses, and discovery 

should be re-opened to allow Defendant to depose Ms. Barror and Mr. Kohl and Defendant’s

expense.

2. Ms. Bolin should not be excluded as a witness. However, Defendant’s request

to re-open discovery as to Ms. Bolin should be denied.

3. Mr. Lewis and Mr. Widosch should not be excluded as witnesses, and discovery

should be re-opened to allow Defendant to depose them. The magistrate judge recommended

that Plaintiff bear the deposition costs as to Mr. Lewis and Mr. Widosch, including travel of

attorneys and witnesses, court reporter and videographer fees, and other related costs except

attorneys’ fees. 

(See Doc. No. 175.)

Pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may file and

serve objections to the magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive matter within 10 days

after being served with a copy of the order. To date, no party has filed objections to the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendations. Under Rule 72(a), the time for doing so is

long past. Accordingly, the Court adopts in full the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendations.

On August 4, 2008, the Court held a pretrial conference. (See Doc. No. 181.) The

Court set a trial date of January 21, 2009 at 9:00 a.m.. Motions in limine will be heard January

20, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. No later than September 5, 2008, the parties shall lodge a revised

proposed joint pretrial order consistent with the August 4, 2008 pretrial conference and the

magistrate judge’s determination regarding the five witnesses discussed above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 28, 2008

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:06-cv-01584-H-POR Document 182 Filed 08/28/08 Page 2 of 2