Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00419/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00419-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIGHTON COLLECTIBLES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10-CV-419-GPC (WVG)

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

ISSUE PRECLUSION

SANCTIONS

[Dkt. No. 265.]

vs.

RK TEXAS LEATHER MFG; K & L

IMPORTS, INC.; et al.,

Defendants,

and related cross claims.

On August 5, 2013, Defendants K&L Imports, Inc.; NHW, Inc.; Joy Max

Trading, Inc.; YK Trading, Inc.; and AIF Corporation filed a motion for issue

preclusion sanctions against Plaintiff for failure to comply with the pretrial disclosure

requirements as to actual damages. (Dkt. No. 265.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on

August 23, 2013. (Dkt. No. 277.) Defendants filed a reply on August 30, 2013. (Dkt.

No. 278.) 

Background

On February 24, 2010, Bright filed its original complaint against Defendant RK

Texas Leather Mfg., Inc. (“Texas Leather”). (Dkt. No. 1.) On December 6, 2010,

Texas Leather filed a third party complaint against K&L Import, Inc.; NHW, Inc. d/b/a/

Sense Trading Co.; YK Trading, Inc.; JCNY; Joy Max Trading, Inc.; AIF Corporation

d/b/a Global Time International, Lucky-7 International and Time World. (Dkt. No. 17.) 

On February 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Texas

- 1 - 10-CV-419

Case 3:10-cv-00419-GPC-WVG Document 280 Filed 09/03/13 Page 1 of 7
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

Leather; K&L Imports, Inc.; NHW, Inc.; YK Trading, Inc.; JC NY; Joy Max Trading,

Inc.; and AIF Corporation. (Dkt. No. 51.) On August 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a second

amended complaint against Texas Leather; Richard Ohr, Texas Leather’s owner; K&L

Imports, Inc; NHW, Inc.; YK Trading, Inc; Joy Max Trading, Inc.; and AIF

Corporation. (Dkt. No. 87.) The SAC alleges causes of action for copyright

infringement; trade dress infringement;false designation of origin; common law unfair

competition; statutory unfair competition; and trademark infringement. (Id.) On

November 8, 2011, DefendantRichard Ohrfiled a cross claimagainst K&L; NHW; Joy

Max, YK Trading, Inc.; JCNY and AIF Corporation. (Dkt. No. 101.) 

On August 5, 2013, Defendants moved for issue preclusion sanctions pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) for failure to comply with the pretrial

disclosure requirements pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. (Dkt. No.

265.) Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to disclose its actual damages theory. 

Plaintiff argues that all information about its actual damages calculations has already

been presented to Defendants during discovery.

Discussion

I. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 26(a) provides that a party’s initial

disclosures provide a “computation of each category of damages claimed by the

disclosing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). Rule 26(e)(1)(A) requires

disclosing parties to supplement their prior disclosures “in a timely manner” when the

prior response is “incomplete or incorrect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A). Rule 37(c)

provides that “[i]f 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 to supply evidence

. . . at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 37(c)(1).

District court have discretion to impose discovery sanctions. Payne v. Exxon

Corp., 121 F.3d 503, 507 (9th Cir. 1997). The remedies of issue preclusion sanctions

- 2 - 10-CV-419

Case 3:10-cv-00419-GPC-WVG Document 280 Filed 09/03/13 Page 2 of 7
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

exist for a discovery abuse that is so extreme and prejudicial that no lesser remedy will

cure the harm. Synapsis, LLC v. Evergreen Data Sys., Inc., No. C05-1524 JF(RS),

2006 WL 2884413, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (citing In re Exxon Valdez, 102 F.3d 429,

432-33 (9th Cir. 1996)). 

While Defendants cite to cases where courts have excluded evidence at trial

relating to damages that were not disclosed in the Rule 26(a)(1)(C) initial disclosures,

these cases involved the failure to disclose the damage theory and computation. See

Roberts v. Ground Handling, Inc., No.04 Civ. 4955(WCC), 2007 WL 2753862, at *4

(S.D. N.Y. 2007) (excluding newly advanced damage theory); Wilson v. Pope, 1997

WL 403684, at *8 (N.D. Ill. July 14, 1997) (evidence precluded of damages not

disclosed during discovery and only disclosed until final pretrial order). The instant

situation is different. While Plaintiff has properly disclosed its damages theory, it has

not properly supplemented its disclosures to provide the computation of damages. 

Defendants argue that the only damage theory and computation provided by

Plaintiff was excluded by the Court in its order on Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment. They assert that no other damage theories or other damage computations

have been provided as required under Rule 26(a). Defendants argue that Plaintiff

should be precluded from presenting any theory of actual damages, including without

limitation damages based on claimed lost sales, lost profits, damage to goodwill or

corrective advertising. 

Plaintiff contends that it disclosed the theory of actual damages it intends to

present at trial during discovery and the information supporting its method of

calculating actual damages is in Dr. Robert Wunderlich’s expert report. 

On December 30, 2011, in Plaintiff’s response to special interrogatory No. 12,

Plaintiff responded:

The distribution of look-alike Brighton products harms Brighton. 

Some customers or prospective customers of Brighton would purchase

authentic Brighton products but instead purchase look-alike products

as cheaper substitutes or because they erroneously believe the lookalikes are affiliated with Brighton. Some customers or prospective

customers stop buying Brighton products and/or stop shopping at

- 3 - 10-CV-419

Case 3:10-cv-00419-GPC-WVG Document 280 Filed 09/03/13 Page 3 of 7
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

Brighton stores altogether because the mass advertising and sales of

Brighton knockoffs render Brighton, its look and its copyrighted

ornamental designs more commonplace and less unique and desirable.

(Dkt. No. 277-1, Wesley Decl., Ex. 1 at 3.) This response explains Brighton’s damage

theory based on loss profit and damage to goodwill. Therefore, Plaintiff has

sufficiently disclosed its damage theory to Defendants. The issue is whether Plaintiff

has disclosed the “computation” of the damages it seeks. 

Brighton alleges that all evidence in support of its damages calculations were

disclosed in Plaintiff’s expert report and during the expert’s deposition.1

Plaintiff contends that the evidence in discovery reveals the following:

• Brighton business records documenting the historical average profit per

transaction at a Brighton store during the relevant time period ($20.30); 

• An estimate of the number of Brighton customers and potential customers(3.5

million — i.e., approximately 1 out of every 100 people in this country);

• Brighton business records documenting the number of units of Brighton

products sold during the period of infringement (10.57 million);

• Consumer survey results evidencing the average number of Brighton products

owned by a Brighton customer (6);

• Consumer survey results evidencing the percentage ofBrighton customers who

have seen lower-priced knockoffs in the marketplace (40.9%);

• Consumer survey results evidencing the percentage ofBrighton customers who

would reduce orstop their purchases of authentic Brighton products based on the

presence of Defendants' knockoff bags in the market (25.7%);

• Synthesizing the evidence above, an estimate of the number of Brighton

customers and potential customers who would reduce their Brighton purchases

On May 10, 2012, Defendants deposed Robert Wunderlich, Ph.D. concerning

1

his expert report and specifically asked himquestions about Schedule D-1 of his expert

report concerning “Illustration of Applying Consumer Survey Data to Estimate Lost

Sales.” (Dkt. No. 277-1, Wesley Decl., Ex. 4, Wunderlich Depo. at 142:6-156.) 

During the deposition, Wunderlich was questioned as to his calculations of the

consumer survey data provided by Frazier to estimate lost sales. (Id.)

- 4 - 10-CV-419

Case 3:10-cv-00419-GPC-WVG Document 280 Filed 09/03/13 Page 4 of 7
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

due to Defendants’ knockoffs (367,896 — 3.5 million x 40.9% x 25.7%);

• An estimate of the percentage of infringing product in the marketplace

attributable to each defendant (Joy Max 34%; NHW 1.2%; K&L 5.3%). 

Therefore, according to Brighton, a reasonable jury could calculate damages as

to Defendant K & L as follows: 

The estimated number of Brighton customers who would reduce their

purchases due to the presence of Brighton knockoffs (367,896) x a

single lost transaction (1) x the amount lost in the transaction ($20.30)

x the percentage of knockoffsin the market attributable to K&L (5.3%)

=$395,819.

(Dkt. No. 277, P’s Opp. at 9.) 

“The party seeking damages must also timely disclose its theory of damages as

well asthe computation of those damages.” LT Game Internt’l Ltd. v. Shuffle Master,

Inc., No. 12cv1216-GMN, 2013 WL 321659, at *6 (D. Nev. Jan. 28, 2013) (citing City

and County of San Francisco v. Tutor-Saliba Corp., 218 F.R.D. 219, 222 (N.D. Cal.

2003)). “Computation” contemplatessome analysis beyond merely setting forth a lump

sum amount. Id. While the computation of damages does not need to be detailed early

in the case prior to relevant discovery, the plaintiff must supplement its initial damages

computation to reflect information obtained during discovery. Id. 

While Plaintiff disclosed all the evidence underlying the calculation during

discovery, such as the sales data and consumer survey results which are disclosed in

the expert report, it did not present the method or formula for calculating actual

damages until it filed its opposition to the instant motion. The computation for actual

damages should have been disclosed in a supplemental disclosure as required under

Rule 26(e)(1)(A) especially after the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ Daubert motion. 

In order to determine whether to exclude any evidence or argument at trial concerning

actual damages, the Court must determine whether the failure to disclose was

“substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) “The information may

be introduced if the parties’ failure to disclose is substantially justified or harmless.” 

Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001). 

- 5 - 10-CV-419

Case 3:10-cv-00419-GPC-WVG Document 280 Filed 09/03/13 Page 5 of 7
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

II. Substantially Justified

Plaintiff contends that it was substantially justified in believing that it had

complied with Rule 26 because Defendants had all the evidence underlying Brighton’s

damage theory for over a year and a half. Moreover, even if a Rule 26 violation

occurred, exclusion of evidence is not appropriate. Defendants argue Plaintiff cannot

demonstrate any substantial justification for its failure to provide the damage

calculation in light of their repeated requests. 

The Court agrees with Defendants that the repeated requests by Defendants

seeking actual damage calculations indicate that they did not fully understand the

nature and computation of the damages Plaintiff sought in light of the Court’s ruling

excluding Plaintiff’s actual damages claim based on the Ratio Framework. The fact

that Defendants had the underlying data and facts does not excuse Plaintiff from

supplementing its disclosures to provide the computation of damages based on the

underlying data and facts as required under Rule 26. Accordingly, Plaintiff was not

substantially justified in not disclosing the damage calculations. 

 III. Harmless

Plaintiff argues if there was a failure to disclose, it was harmless since

Defendants still have about two months before trial to refuteBrighton’s damages claim. 

Defendants do not specifically explain how theywill be prejudiced besides arguing that

the calculation has not yet been provided. The failure to disclose is harmless since the

information on which these damages are calculated have been in Defendants’

possession. See Maharaj v. Cal. Bank & Trust, 288 F.R.D. 458, 463 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

(citing Creswell v. HCAL Corp., No. 04cv388 BTM (RBB), 2007 WL 628036, at *2

(S.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2007) (holding Plaintiff's failure to provide a computation of lost

employee benefits in an ADA and FEHA disability discrimination action against his

former employer was harmless “as Defendant has the records of the benefits it paid to

Plaintiff”)). Since Defendants have had the underlying data and surveys, it appearsthat

Defendants have conducted intensive analysis as to Dr. Wunderlich and Dr. Frazier’s

- 6 - 10-CV-419

Case 3:10-cv-00419-GPC-WVG Document 280 Filed 09/03/13 Page 6 of 7
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

reports and/or surveys and the underlying data involved as revealed by the arguments

presented in their motion. Therefore, the harm to Defendants for Plaintiff’s failure to

disclose the specific computation of actual damages is harmless. 

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for issue preclusion

sanctions pursuant to Rule 37. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 3, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 7 - 10-CV-419

Case 3:10-cv-00419-GPC-WVG Document 280 Filed 09/03/13 Page 7 of 7