Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01831/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01831-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125la 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEADERSHIP STUDIES, INC., a

California corporation,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15-cv-1831-WQH (KSC)

ORDER

vs.

BLANCHARD TRAINING AND

DEVELOPMENT, INC.,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the review of the Report and Recommendation

(ECF No. 174) issued by the United States Magistrate Judge. 

Background

On April 27, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge issued the Report and

Recommendation, recommending that this Court deny the request by Plaintiff

Leadership Studies for an order imposing discovery sanctions against Defendant

Blanchard Training and Development by excluding the expert report and expert

testimony of Hal Poret. (ECF No. 174). 

On May 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

(ECF No. 190). 

On May 18, 2018, Defendant filed a response to the objections. (ECF No. 195). 

- 1 - 15cv1831-WQH -KSC

Case 3:15-cv-01831-WQH-KSC Document 204 Filed 08/07/18 PageID.<pageID> 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

Legal Standard

The duties of the district court in connection with a report and recommendation

of a magistrate judge are set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and 28

U.S.C. § 636(b). The district judge must “make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report ... to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 

Ruling of the Court

After conducting a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation and

considering the objections filed by Plaintiff Leadership Studies, the Court finds that the

Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the request for an order excluding the expert

report and expert testimony of Hal Poret should be denied. The Court adopts the Report

and Recommendation in its entirety.

Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

174) is adopted in its entirety. The Joint motion for Determination of Discovery dispute

(ECF No. 141) is granted and Plaintiff’s request for an order imposing discovery

sanctions against Defendant by excluding the expert report and expert testimony of Hal

Poret is denied. 

DATED: August 7, 2018

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 2 - 15cv1831-WQH -KSC

Case 3:15-cv-01831-WQH-KSC Document 204 Filed 08/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2