Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01831/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01831-5/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

;~t '.T {~DIJRJ 

:~ ,;;;-~~~f :;,;kh-: !i 

LEADERSHIP STUDIES INC., CASE NO. l 5-cv-1831-WQH-MDD 

Plaintiff, ORDER 

v. 

BLANCHARD TRAINING AND 

DEVELOPMENT 

INCORPORATED, and Does 1-10 

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

BLANCHARD TRAINING AND 

DEVELOPMENT, 

INCORPORATED, 

Counterclaim-Plaintiff, 

v. 

LEADERSHIP STUDIES INC., 

Counterclaim-Defendant. 

25 HA YES, Judge: 

26 The matter before the Court is the Ex Parte Application for Oral Argument and 

27 Stay of Expert Dates (ECF No. 120) filed by Blanchard Training and Development, 

28 Incorporated ("Blanchard Inc.") on November 20, 2017. 

- I - 15-cv-1831-WQH-MDD 

Case 3:15-cv-01831-WQH-KSC Document 128 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
1 I. Discussion 

2 On September 25, 2017, the Court issued an Order (ECF No. 108) granting in 

3 part and denying in part Blanchard Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment on Claim 

4 Seven (ECF No. 63). The Court granted Blanchard Inc. summary judgment on 

5 Leadership Studies, Inc.'s copyright infringement claims based on original material 

6 contained in four works, one of which was Dr. Paul Hersey's 1975 Doctoral 

7 Dissertation (the "Dissertation"). (ECF No. 108 at 9). The Court also denied 

8 Blanchard Inc.'s motion for summary j~dgment on Leadership Studies, Inc.'s claims 

9 for copyright infringement based on two other works: Leader Behavior and The 

10 Situational Leader. Id. 

11 On October 23, 2017, Blanchard Inc. filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that 

12 Order. (ECF No. 117). "Specifically, Blanchard [Inc.] seeks reconsideration of the 

13 Court's decision with respect to Leader Behavior and The Situational Leader." Id. at 

14 2. 

15 On November 20, 2017, Blanchard Inc. filed the Ex Parte Application for Oral 

16 Argument and Stay of Expert Dates (ECF No. 120). Blanchard Inc. moves the Court 

17 to ( 1) set a date for oral argument on the Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 117) 

18 and (2) stay the December 1, 2017 deadline for the disclosure of rebuttal expert 

19 evidence. (ECF No. 120 at 2). 

20 Blanchard Inc. contends that "oral argument is necessary to address [Leadership 

21 Studies, Inc.' s] pursuit of a copyright infringement claim [based on the Dissertation] 

22 in direct violation of this Court's Order[] (ECF No. 108)." Id. However, Blanchard 

23 Inc.' s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 117) does not ask the Court to reconsider 

24 its decision that Leadership Studies, Inc. ("Leadership") cannot pursue copyright 

25 infringement claims based on original material in the Dissertation. Consequently, oral 

26 argument on Blanchard Inc.'s Motion for Reconsideration would not address 

27 Leadership's pursuit of a copyright infringement claim based upon original material in 

28 the Dissertation. The Court denies Blanchard Inc.' s motion for oral argument. 

-2- 15-cv-l 83 l-WQH-MDD 

Case 3:15-cv-01831-WQH-KSC Document 128 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

Blanchard Inc. further contends that 

Leadership Studies' expert reports conclusively establish that Leadership 

Studies is relying on the Dissertation and the "original material" contained 

therein to support its copyright infringement claim, and Blanchard 

Training faces imminent prejudice as a result of Leadership Studies' 

conduct. Absent immediate relief, Blanchard Training will be forced to 

expend substantial resources relating to rebuttal expert reports and expert 

depositions to address a copyright infringement claim that violates this 

Court's MSJ Order. 

ECF No. 120 at 4 (footnote omitted). The Court finds that any "prejudice" that may 

8 

result from Leadership providing expert reports that discuss the Dissertation does not 

9 

justify staying the December 1, 2017 deadline for the disclosure of rebuttal expert 

10 

evidence. Accordingly, the Court denies Blanchard Inc.' s motion to stay that deadline. 

11 

II. Conclusion 

12 

13 

Blanchard Inc's Ex Parte Application for Oral Argument and Stay of Experts 

Dates (ECF No. 120) is DENIED. 

14 

WILLIAM 

~~ Q. HA YES 

United States District Judge 

- 3 - 15-cv-1831-WQH-MDD 

Case 3:15-cv-01831-WQH-KSC Document 128 Filed 11/29/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3