Munchkin, Inc. v. Luv N'Care, Ltd. et al

Filing 147

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY BY N. HAKIM 73 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. Mr. Hakim may only provide lay testimony based upon his personal observations and knowledge as a result of his position at Luv N' Care. (lom)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

United States District Court
Central District of California

9
10
11
12

MUNCHKIN, INC.,

Case No. 2:13-cv-07228-ODW(AGRx)

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

15

LUV N’ CARE, LTD.; ADMAR

MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT

16

INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

TESTIMONY BY N. HAKIM [73]

17

Defendants.

18

I.

INTRODUCTION

19

Plaintiff Munchkin, Inc. moves to exclude expert testimony by Defendants Luv

20

N’ Care, Ltd. and Admar International, Inc. (collectively, “LNC” or “Defendants”)

21

Chief Executive Officer Nouri Hakim. Plaintiff argues that Mr. Hakim was never

22

disclosed as an expert witness and therefore is unable to offer expert opinion

23

testimony at trial regarding invalidity of the patent-in-suit. For the reasons discussed

24

below, the Court finds that Mr. Hakim can only provide lay testimony complying with

25

Fed. R. Evid. 701 during trial and therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.1 (ECF No.

26

73.)

27
28

1

After carefully considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court
deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.

II.

1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2

Plaintiff initiated this infringement action against Defendants on September 30,

3

2013. (Compl., ECF No.1.) U.S. Patent No. 6,292,962 (the ’962 Patent) is directed to

4

an infant blanket with teether/pacifier attached at the corners.

5

On January 15, 2014, the Court issued a Scheduling and Case Management

6

Order (ECF No. 21) setting October 6, 2014 as the deadline for parties to serve

7

opening expert disclosures on issues for which the party bears the burden of proof.

8

When the deadline arrived, Defendants served a single expert report by a patent

9

attorney named Edward Manzo addressing patent office practice and procedure related

10

to the ’962 Patent. (Mot. 1–2.) Defendants served no disclosure regarding Mr. Hakim

11

at that time, nor have Defendants served any disclosure after the October 6th deadline.

12

(Mot. 2.)

13

At Mr. Hakim’s deposition on November 26, 2014, Mr. Hakim indicated that he

14

intended to offer opinion testimony regarding the validity of the ’962 Patent. (See,

15

e.g., Garrison Decl., Ex. A at 17:11–16 (“Q: Mr. Hakim, are you planning on offering

16

any opinions in any way regarding the validity of the patent in suit? A: Yes . . .”).)

17

On December 5, 2014, the parties participated in a meet-and-confer telephone

18

conversation regarding a stipulation as to what Mr. Hakim will testify to at trial.

19

(Mot. 3.) The draft stipulation proposed an agreement that Mr. Hakim (1) would only

20

testify as a fact witness, (2) would not seek to be qualified as an expert at trial for any

21

purpose, and (3) would not offer opinion testimony on any issue, including the alleged

22

invalidity of the patent-in-suit, as a lay witness, an expert witness, or otherwise.

23

(Garrison Decl., Ex. C.) Defendants responded on December 8, 2014 and rejected

24

Plaintiff’s proposed stipulation, noting specifically that “Defendants are not willing to

25

stipulate that Mr. Hakim will ‘not seek to be qualified as an expert’ and/or ‘will not

26

offer any opinion testimony on any issue….”

(Garrison Decl., Ex. D, p. 6.)

27

Following those meet and confer efforts, Plaintiff filed this present motion on

28

January 5, 2015. (ECF Nos. 73, 74.) Defendants timely opposed and Plaintiff replied.

2

1

(ECF Nos. 84, 85.) That motion is now before the Court for consideration.
III.

2
3

LEGAL STANDARD

A. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37

4

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), a party is required to

5

“disclose to other parties the identity of any person who may be used at trial to present

6

evidence under Rules 702, 703, or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.” Fed. R.

7

Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A). Further, under Rule 26(a)(2)(B):

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

[The] disclosure shall, with respect to a witness who is retained or
specially employed to provide expert testimony in the case or whose
duties as an employee of the party regularly involve giving expert
testimony, be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by
the witness. The report shall contain a complete statement of all opinions
to be expressed and the basis and reasons therefor; the data or other
information considered by the witness in forming the opinions; any
exhibits to be used as a summary of or support for the opinions; the
qualifications of the witness, including a list of all publications authored
by the witness within the preceding ten years; the compensation to be
paid for the study and testimony; and a listing of any other cases in which
the witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the
preceding four years.

18
19

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).

20

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), “[a] party that without

21

substantial justification fails to disclose information required by Rule 26(a) . . . is not,

22

unless such failure is harmless, permitted to use as evidence at a trial, at a hearing, or

23

on a motion any witness or information not so disclosed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).

24

B. Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 702

25
26

If a witness renders an opinion as a lay witness, that opinion must comply with
Federal Rule of Evidence 701, which states:

27
28

If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the
form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences

3

1
2
3

which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b)
helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the
determination of a fact in issue, and (c) not based on scientific, technical
or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Fed. R. Evid. 701. Pursuant to Rule 702:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier
of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a
witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training,
or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise,
if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the
testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the
witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the
case.

12
13

Fed. R. Evid. 702. Thus, under Rule 701, any part of a witness’ testimony that is

14

based upon scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of

15

Rule 702 is governed by the standards of Rule 702 and the corresponding disclosure

16

requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This “eliminate[s] the risk that

17

the reliability requirements set forth in Rule 702 will be evaded through the simple

18

expedient of proffering an expert in lay witness clothing.”

19

Advisory Committee Notes to 2000 Amendment. Since it is possible for the same

20

witness to provide both lay and expert testimony in a single case, however, the Court

21

is required to distinguish between expert and lay testimony, not just expert and lay

22

witnesses. Id.

23

IV.

Fed. R. Evid. 701

DISCUSSION

24

With respect to the instant Motion, neither party disputes that Mr. Hakim was

25

not disclosed as an expert witness and that Mr. Hakim has not submitted an expert

26

report. Further, neither party disputes that, since Mr. Hakim was not disclosed as an

27

expert, any testimony falling within the ambit of Rule 702 must be excluded. The

28

4

1

dispute therefore centers upon whether Mr. Hakim’s potential testimony on issues

2

regarding invalidity complies with Rule 701.

3

Defendants argue that Mr. Hakim can offer opinion testimony on (1) the level

4

of skill in the art, (2) the scope and content of the prior art, and (3) any secondary

5

considerations including but not limited to commercial success and near

6

contemporaneous invention. (Opp’n 1.) The basis of Defendants’ argument is that

7

while the ultimate question of validity is one of law, obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §

8

103 requires factual inquiries. Id. Further, Defendants argue that Mr. Hakim has

9

nearly 50 years of experience in the field of baby-products and holds several United

10

States patents and therefore has personal knowledge of the topics he plans on

11

testifying about.

12

Regardless of Mr. Hakim’s vast experience, he cannot provide expert testimony

13

because Defendants failed to disclose him under FRCP 26(a)(2)(A).

14

regularly allow lay witnesses to testify with regard to their personal knowledge of a

15

particular invention or piece of prior art, the mandate of Rule 701 is clear. Fresenius

16

Med. Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc., No. 597, 2006 WL 1330002, at *3

17

(N.D. Cal. May 15, 2006). Lay opinion testimony is “not to provide specialized

18

explanations or interpretations that an untrained layman could not make if perceiving

19

the same acts or events.” Id. (quoting U.S. v. Conn, 297 F.3d 548, 554 (7th Cir.

20

2002)). Accordingly, Mr. Hakim cannot testify on any issues regarding invalidity,

21

which includes the level of skill in the art, the scope and content of the prior art, and

22

any secondary considerations. See Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon,

23

Inc., CIV. 06–CV–100–JD, 2009 WL 801826, at *5 (D.N.H. Mar. 24, 2009) (“A

24

witness's testimony about the obviousness of an invention, in patent litigation,

25

however, requires highly technical and specialized knowledge that is beyond the scope

26

of Rule 701.”) (quotations and citation omitted); see also Fresenius, 2006 WL

27

1330002, at *3 (barring lay witness testimony comparing prior art to patent at issue);

28

Gart v. Logitech, Inc., 254 F. Supp. 2d 1119, 1123 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (“[W]hen the

5

While courts

1

declarants compare the [prior art] to the [ ] Patent [at issue], they provide testimony

2

that does require specialized knowledge. This they are not permitted to do as lay

3

witnesses.”). Mr. Hakim may only provide lay testimony based upon his personal

4

observations and knowledge as a result of his position at Luv N’ Care.

5

Interwoven, Inc. v. Vertical Computer Sys., No. CV 10-04645 RS, 2013 WL 3786633,

6

at *11 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2013).
V.

7
8
9

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude
Expert Testimony by Mr. Hakim.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

February 24, 2015

14
15
16

See

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6