Court Opinion

ID: 9366240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 15:04:07.849782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:50.718395
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40067     Document: 00516429244          Page: 1       Date Filed: 08/11/2022

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                            United States Court of Appeals
                                                                             Fifth Circuit

                                                                           FILED
                                                                     August 11, 2022
                                  No. 22-40067
                                Summary Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                              Clerk

   Booker T. Huffman,

                                                            Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                       versus

   Activision Publishing, Incorporated; Activision
   Blizzard, Incorporated; Major League Gaming
   Corporation; Treyarch Corporation,

                                                         Defendants—Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 2:19-CV-50

   Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Plaintiff-Appellant Booker T. Huffman (“Booker T”) sued
   Defendants-Appellees      (collectively,     “Activision”)      for      copyright

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
   circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-40067      Document: 00516429244           Page: 2      Date Filed: 08/11/2022

                                     No. 22-40067

   infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501 and violation of the Digital Millennium
   Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1202. The jury returned a verdict of no
   infringement, and the district court entered an order dismissing the case.
   Booker T appealed. We AFFIRM.
                                I.    Background
          Booker T is a professional wrestler who sometimes uses the in-ring
   persona, “G.I. Bro.” In 2015, Booker T teamed up with Travis Huffman to
   create cartoon versions of G.I. Bro and comic books based on the character
   (collectively, the “G.I. Bro works”). Booker T registered the comic books
   and illustrations with the United States Copyright Office. He also promoted
   his character and the comic books by appearing at comic book events dressed
   as G.I. Bro.
          Activision published a series of multiplayer, first-person shooter
   videogames titled, “Call of Duty.” One of the games, Call of Duty: Black Ops
   III included a character named David “Prophet” Wilkes, who had replaced
   ninety percent of his body with cybernetics to enhance his fighting ability. In
   2018, Activision released a prequel to Black Ops III called Call of Duty: Black
   Ops IV, which depicted Prophet as he was before he remade himself. This
   depiction of Prophet and the cartoon image of G.I. Bro both have a muscular
   build, similar skin tone and facial expression, dreadlocks worn under a black
   skull cap, military style clothing including ammunition holders strapped to
   their bodies, and assault rifles held in a similar fashion.
          Booker T brought an action for copyright infringement against
   Appellees alleging that Prophet was a copy of one of his G.I. Bro works—a
   G.I. Bro poster. Before trial, Activision moved in limine to exclude, inter alia,
   evidence of alleged other instances of copyright infringement by Activision.
   This included evidence regarding any alleged resemblance between (1) the
   character Battery from Black Ops IV and Charlize Theron and/or her
   character Furiosa in Mad Max: Fury Road and (2) the character Torque in

                                           2
Case: 22-40067      Document: 00516429244          Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/11/2022

                                    No. 22-40067

   Black Ops IV and Kristofer Hivju and/or his character Tormund Giantsbane
   in Game of Thrones (collectively, the “Battery and Torque exhibits”).
   Huffman agreed to seek leave from the court before introducing these
   exhibits.
          At trial, after Activision’s witness, Dan Bunting, testified as to the
   development of the Prophet character, Booker T’s counsel approached he
   bench seeking to introduce evidence of other copying, ostensibly to test the
   credibility of Bunting’s statement that the company uses a “rigorous process
   . . . to ensure there’s no improper use of any kind of outside reference.” The
   district court ruled that the evidence would not be admitted.
          On the following day, after Activision completed its trial presentation,
   but before the parties rested, Booker T’s counsel stated that he had “exhibits
   we would like to offer as an offer of proof into the [c]ourt’s record[,]”
   including the Battery and Torque exhibits. Activision objected to the
   documents on the grounds that Booker T had not offered the exhibits during
   the earlier bench conference that followed Bunting’s testimony, the
   magistrate judge heard and rejected the same arguments at the pre-trial
   conference, the documents were counsel-created, and allowing the exhibits
   to come in would violate Federal Rule of Evidence 404. The district court
   stated that “balancing the relevancy and probative value against the prejudice
   and delay . . . it was a very easy call” not to admit the exhibits. The district
   court permitted Booker T to file the exhibits on the docket as an offer of
   proof, and he did so after the trial had concluded.
          The jury returned a verdict in favor of Activision, concluding it did
   not infringe Huffman’s copyright in the G.I. Bro poster. Huffman appealed.
   The issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion by
   excluding the Battery and Torque exhibits.

                                          3
Case: 22-40067       Document: 00516429244           Page: 4    Date Filed: 08/11/2022

                                      No. 22-40067

                         II.    Standard of Review
            “We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of
   discretion.” United States v. George, 201 F.3d 370, 372 (5th Cir. 2000). “A
   trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is based on an erroneous view
   of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Bocanegra v.
   Vicmar Servs., Inc., 320 F.3d 581, 584 (5th Cir. 2003). “If we find an abuse of
   discretion in admitting or excluding evidence, we next review the error under
   the harmless error doctrine, affirming the judgment, unless the ruling
   affected substantial rights of the complaining party.” Id. “[W]e ‘may not
   disturb the district court’s exclusion of the evidence . . . if that ruling can be
   upheld on other grounds, regardless of whether the court relied on those
   grounds.’” Viazis v. Am. Ass’n of Orthodontists, 314 F.3d 758, 767 (5th Cir.
   2002).
                               III.    Discussion
            Booker T argues that the district court abused its discretion when it
   excluded the Battery and Torque exhibits because it did not properly weigh
   their probative value against the alleged danger of unfair prejudice or undue
   delay. Activision counters that the Battery and Torque exhibits are character
   evidence barred by Rule 404 and that even if they were relevant for a purpose
   not forbidden by Rule 404, their probative value was substantially
   outweighed by their prejudice. We agree with Activision.
            Federal Rule of Evidence 404 prohibits the introduction of character
   evidence or other bad acts “to show that on a particular occasion the person
   acted in accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(1), (b)(1).
   Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides that “[t]he court may exclude
   relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a
   danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
   misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting
   cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403.

                                           4
Case: 22-40067        Document: 00516429244              Page: 5      Date Filed: 08/11/2022

                                         No. 22-40067

           Booker T contends that he sought to introduce the Battery and
   Torque exhibits to rebut and impeach Bunting’s testimony that Activision
   acted in accordance with the rigorous process he described, “not to prove
   that it infringed [Booker T’s] copyright because of a character trait.” But we
   have explained that “[e]ven where the evidence serves some conceivable
   non-character purpose such as impeachment, we still must carefully consider
   whether the introducing party was actually ‘attempting to convince the jury
   that [the defendant] was a bad man’ who acted in conformity with his bad
   character in the case at hand.” In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip
   Implant Prod. Liab. Litig., 888 F.3d 753, 785 (5th Cir. 2018). “If yes, the
   unduly prejudicial effect of such an argument will very likely substantially
   outweigh its probative value.” Id.
           Here, Booker T’s assertions before the district court and on appeal
   demonstrate that by attempting to introduce the exhibits purportedly
   evidencing other instances of copying, he intended to show that Activision
   acted in conformity with its bad character in the instant case. First, during
   Booker T’s offer of proof, counsel stated in reference to the previous day’s
   bench conference, “I approached the bench to talk about other instances of
   infringement.” 1 Similarly, in his post-trial opposition to Activision’s motion
   for attorney’s fees, Booker T stated, “the evidence, which did not get
   admitted at trial, shows that Defendants’ use of the works and images of
   others is quite vast.” On appeal, Booker T reasons that because the Battery
   and Torque exhibits show that Activision’s creation of two other characters
   involved the improper use of “outside references,” the exhibits could have

           1
            Now, on appeal, Booker T contends that Activision’s creation of Battery and
   Torque were not “other acts” within the meaning of Rule 404 because they were in the
   same game as Prophet and were thus subject to the same Activision process. But Booker T
   cannot have it both ways. That is, he cannot refer to the creation of Battery and Torque as
   “other instances of infringement” while claiming that these were not “other acts.”

                                               5
Case: 22-40067      Document: 00516429244           Page: 6     Date Filed: 08/11/2022

                                     No. 22-40067

   rebutted and impeached Bunting’s testimony in two ways: the jury could
   have concluded (1) “that Activision’s process did not work as Bunting said it
   did” and (2) “that Activision and Bunting did not follow the procedure he
   described.” It follows from these arguments that Booker T wanted the jury
   to doubt Bunting’s testimony and to conclude, based on Activision’s alleged
   copying, that it had failed to abide by its rigorous process in the past, and thus
   had similarly failed in this case. This is improper character evidence under
   Rule 404.
          Moreover, even if the exhibits concerning Activision’s development
   of other characters were relevant to the question of whether it copied the G.I.
   Bro poster to create Prophet’s image, the district court was still within its
   discretion to exclude the Battery and Torque exhibits based on the dangers
   of unfair prejudice and undue delay. The exhibits were highly prejudicial
   because they served to compel the jury to infer that if Activision copied with
   respect to Battery and Torque, it must have similarly copied to create
   Prophet. This prejudicial effect is compounded by Booker T’s lack of proof
   that the creation of Battery and Torque involved improper copying. See Fed.
   R. Evid. 104(b) (“When the relevance of evidence depends on whether a
   fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the
   fact does exist.”).
          Regarding undue delay, the district court reasoned that admitting the
   exhibits “would have resulted in a series of mini trials.” As Activision points
   out, had the Battery and Torque exhibits been admitted, it likely would have
   had to present evidence and testimony to refute Booker T’s assertion that
   those exhibits represented other instances of copying—evidence such as an
   explanation of the casting for the model on whom Torque was based,
   testimony by that model, or expert testimony explaining the archetypes
   Torque was based on. In light of the minimal relevance and probative value
   of the Battery and Torque exhibits, we agree with the district court’s

                                           6
Case: 22-40067       Document: 00516429244            Page: 7      Date Filed: 08/11/2022

                                       No. 22-40067

   assessment that the scale tipped toward unfair prejudice and undue delay.
   We cannot say that this determination was based on an erroneous view of the
   law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. See Bocanegra, 320
   F.3d at 584. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not abuse its
   discretion in excluding the Battery and Torque exhibits. 2
                                IV.     Conclusion
          For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is
   AFFIRMED.

          2
             Because we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion, we need not reach
   Booker T’s argument that the exclusion of the Battery and Torque exhibits affected his
   substantial rights.

                                             7