Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-02579/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-02579-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
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

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

WALL MOUNTAIN COMPANY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GARY EDWARDS,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 08-2579 PVT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

COURT SHOULD NOT RECONSIDER, AND

GRANT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

ORDER CONTINUING PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3) sets a deadline of 30 days before trial for each

party to file certain disclosures, including the identity of trial witnesses and documents to be

submitted at trial. Trial in this matter is currently scheduled to commence on July 19, 2010. Thus,

pursuant to Rule 26(a)(3), the parties pretrial disclosures were due June 21, 2010. (Because June 19,

2010 was a Saturday, the deadline fell on the next court day.) This deadline was confirmed by the

court at the Further Case Management Conference held on May 25, 2010, and documented in the

minute order as well (setting June 21, 2010 as the deadline for filing a pretrial statement, which

pursuant to this court’s standing order would include the required disclosures).

Defendant failed to timely file any pretrial statement. Because Defendant has failed to timely

identify any witnesses, documents, deposition excerpts or other discovery responses that he intends

to introduce at trial, he is precluded from putting on any such evidence unless he can show his failure

to file the require disclosures was either substantially justified or harmless. See, FED.R.CIV.PRO.

Case 5:08-cv-02579-PVT Document 98 Filed 06/28/10 Page 1 of 3
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

Rule 37(c)(1) provides: 1

“If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or

(e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a

motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is

harmless.”

If Defendant is precluded from introducing any testimony or other evidence at trial, in

2

light of the strong showing of willful infringement Plaintiff made in its motion for summary judgment

it appears that impaneling a jury and convening a trial will entail an unnecessary expense of public funds

to achieve an inevitable result.

ORDER, page 2

37(c)(1). This is “a ‘self-executing,’ ‘automatic’ sanction to ‘provide[ ] a strong inducement for 1

disclosure of material.’” See Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 

(9 Cir. 2001). No showing of bad faith or willfulness is required. Ibid. And no showing of th

prejudice to the opposing party is required. See Torres v. City of Los Angeles, 548 F.3d 1197, 1213

(9 Cir. 2008). “Courts have upheld the use of the sanction even when a litigant’s entire cause of th

action or defense has been precluded.” See Yeti by Molly, 259 F.3d at 1106. Therefore, based on

Defendant’s failure to file the required pretrial disclosures, and the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, no later than July 6, 2010, Defendant shall file a declaration

showing cause, if any, why the court should not sua sponte reconsider, and grant, Plaintiff’s motion

for summary judgment. Unless Defendant can show that his failure to file the disclosures was either

substantially justified or harmless, Rule 37(c)(1) mandates that Defendant be precluded from

introducing any testimony or other evidence at trial. If Defendant is barred from introducing

evidence at trial, then reconsideration of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is warranted.2

“Courts have inherent power to modify their interlocutory orders before entering a final

judgment.” See Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 869 F.2d 461, 465 (9 Cir. 1989); see also, th

FED.R.CIV.PRO. 54(b). The court previously denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment based

on Defendant’s opposition brief, which the court deemed to be an “offer of proof.” In denying

summary judgment, the court stated that:

“While the evidence suggests it is likely Defendant sold at least some of the

DVDs at a time he knew he was violating Plaintiff’s copyright (or recklessly

disregarded that possibility), it is not an undisputed fact. A reasonable jury might find

Defendant credible, and further find that he actually believed he was not violating any

enforceable copyrights at the time he sold and offered to sell the subject DVDs.” See

Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (at docket no. 84 herein). 

Case 5:08-cv-02579-PVT Document 98 Filed 06/28/10 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER, page 3

Unless Defendant can overcome the automatic sanctions of Rule 37(c)(1), the possibility of a

jury finding Defendant credible and that he believed he was not violating Plaintiff’s copyrights is

removed because Defendant will be precluded from testifying or introducing any evidence. Under

such circumstances, summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor is warranted because, based on the

evidence that will be allowed at trial, the facts are not such “that a rational or reasonable jury might

return a verdict in [Defendant’s] favor.” See T.W. Elec. Service v. Pacific Elec. Contractors, 809

F.2d 626, 630-31 (9 Cir. 1987). th

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pretrial conference is CONTINUED to 2:00 p.m. on

July 13, 2010.

Dated: 6/28/10

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:08-cv-02579-PVT Document 98 Filed 06/28/10 Page 3 of 3