Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02884/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02884-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:44 Trademark Infringement

---

– 1 – 12-cv-2884 BAS (MDD)

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

HM ELECTRONICS, INC., a 

California corporation,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 12-cv-2884 BAS (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

AND DENYING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 

EXCLUDE THE EXPERT 

REPORT OF DR. AIMEE 

DROLET ROSSI

[ECF 233]

v.

R.F. TECHNOLOGIES, INC., an 

Illinois corporation,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff HM Electronics, Inc.’s motion to 

exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Aimee Drolet Rossi. ECF 233. The Court finds 

this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral 

argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d.1). For the reasons set forth below, the Court 

GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion. ECF 233.

I. BACKGROUND

The initial expert disclosure deadline was May 30, 2014. Order 2, ECF 138. 

Plaintiff submitted the report of Dr. Susan Schwartz McDonald on that date. 

Case 3:12-cv-02884-BAS-MDD Document 302 Filed 04/17/15 Page 1 of 4
– 2 – 12-cv-2884 BAS (MDD)

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

McDonald Decl., ECF 223-5. In her report, Dr. McDonald opined that Defendant’s 

conduct harmed Plaintiff by causing customer confusion. Id. at 7–14. She also 

stated that corrective advertising is necessary to remedy the harm. Id. at 14.

Defendant apparently did not submit an initial expert report.

The rebuttal expert disclosure deadline was June 16, 2014. Order 2, ECF 138.

Defendant submitted the expert report of Dr. Aimee Rossi in rebuttal to Dr. 

McDonald’s report. Rossi Decl., ECF 246-2. Dr. Rossi’s report was based on a 

review of Dr. McDonald’s report, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction 

(ECF 35), Defendant’s opposition (ECF 40), Plaintiff’s reply (ECF 43), and all the 

attached exhibits and declarations. Id. at 30. During her deposition, Dr. Rossi 

testified she did not write her report in rebuttal to Dr. McDonald’s report. Rossi 

Dep. 42–43, ECF 233-4.

Plaintiff argues Dr. Rossi’s report should be excluded because it contains 

legal conclusions based on incorrect legal standards, it is based on a selective 

reading of the record, and it is not a rebuttal report, thus making it an untimely 

expert disclosure. Pl.’s Mot. 9, 14, 20. Defendant counters by defending Dr. Rossi’s 

credentials and arguing the Court should allow the jury to decide whether to believe 

Dr. Rossi. Def.’s Opp’n 4, 11.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Expert rebuttal reports must be “intended solely to contradict or rebut 

evidence on the same subject matter identified by another party” in their expert 

disclosures. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D)(ii). The phrase “same subject matter” 

should be read narrowly because a broad reading that “encompass[es] any possible 

topic that relates to the subject matter at issue[] will blur the distinction between 

‘affirmative expert’ and ‘rebuttal expert.’” Vu v. McNeil-PPC, Inc., No. CV 09–

1656, 2010 WL 2179882, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2010). “Accordingly, a careful 

analysis of each of the Plaintiff's expert[’]s proposed testimony and the 

corresponding [Defendant's] expert[’]s rebuttal testimony is required to determine if 

Case 3:12-cv-02884-BAS-MDD Document 302 Filed 04/17/15 Page 2 of 4
– 3 – 12-cv-2884 BAS (MDD)

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

the rebuttal testimony is proper.” Hellman-Blumberg v. Univ. of Pac., No. 12–cv–

00286, 2013 WL 3422699, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 8, 2013).

III. DISCUSSION

Dr. Rossi’s report was submitted as a rebuttal to Dr. McDonald’s report. 

While Dr. Rossi does briefly address Dr. McDonald’s opinions, the bulk of Dr. 

Rossi’s report is nonresponsive to Dr. McDonald’s report. Dr. Rossi instead directs 

her report at arguments made by Plaintiff in its motion for a preliminary injunction. 

For instance, Dr. Rossi opines that Defendant’s use of Plaintiff’s Federal 

Communications Commission (“FCC”) ID numbers on the rebranded products is 

unlikely to cause customer confusion. Rossi Decl. 10. Dr. McDonald never opined 

on the FCC ID numbers. Plaintiff did, however, argue in its motion that 

Defendant’s use of the same FCC numbers caused customer confusion. See ECF 35, 

14–15.

Dr. Rossi’s deposition testimony explains why her report is not limited to

addressing Dr. McDonald’s report. When asked whether Defendant instructed her 

to draft a rebuttal report, Dr. Rossi stated “[Defendant] just said to write a report, so 

no, I was not under the impression that I was writing a rebuttal report. . . . I’m not 

rebutting.” Rossi Dep. 42. Shortly thereafter she stated “[y]eah, I was not asked to 

specifically rebut anyone. I received a set of materials . . . [a]nd . . . that’s what I 

looked at.” Id. at 43. Dr. Rossi goes on to say she was not specifically rebutting Dr. 

McDonald at least six more times, all in response to the same question: “What 

opinion of Dr. McDonald’s does this [statement in Dr. Rossi’s report] rebut?” Id. at 

323–27.

Dr. Rossi does offer rebuttal testimony to Dr. McDonald’s report on pages 6–

8. These portions are admissible rebuttal testimony. The balance of Dr. Rossi’s 

report was not intended to contradict or rebut Dr. McDonald’s report. It therefore 

constitutes impermissible expert rebuttal testimony.

Case 3:12-cv-02884-BAS-MDD Document 302 Filed 04/17/15 Page 3 of 4
– 4 – 12-cv-2884 BAS (MDD)

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

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART, and the Court

ORDERS all portions of Dr. Aimee Drolet Rossi’s report that do not contradict or 

rebut the opinions of Dr. Susan Schwartz McDonald to be STRICKEN from the 

record. ECF 233. To the extent Dr. Rossi’s report contradicts or rebuts the opinions 

of Dr. McDonald, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. ECF 233.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 17, 2015

Case 3:12-cv-02884-BAS-MDD Document 302 Filed 04/17/15 Page 4 of 4