TEK Global S.R.L. et.al. v. Sealant Systems International Inc. et.al.

Filing 486

FURTHER ORDER RE TRIAL EXHIBITS 60 AND 145. Signed by Judge Chhabria on 3/12/2017. (vclc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2017)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TEK GLOBAL, S.R.L., et al.,

Case No. 11-cv-00774-VC

Plaintiffs,
FURTHER ORDER RE TRIAL
EXHIBITS 60 AND 145

v.
SEALANT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL,
INC, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 481, 484, 485

Defendants.

Sealant's request to exclude trial exhibits 60 and 145 is denied.
There is no freestanding "sponsoring witness" requirement in the Federal Rules of
Evidence. There is an authentication requirement. Fed. R. Evid. 901. But Sealant appears not to
be invoking it, see Defs.' Br. (Dkt. No. 485) at 4 n.2, and TEK has proffered enough evidence to
overcome any threshold authenticity concerns in the event such an objection is raised. Pls.' Br.
(Dkt. No. 484) at 2; see, e.g., U.S. v. Fluker, 698 F.3d 988, 999-1000 (7th Cir. 2012); Adams v.
United States, No. CIV. 03-0049-E-BLW, 2009 WL 1922250, at *1 (D. Idaho June 30, 2009);
U.S. v. Safavian, 435 F. Supp. 2d 36, 41-42 (D.D.C. 2006). There is a personal knowledge
requirement for witness testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 602. But the evidence at issue here is
documentary, and to the extent Sealant objects to documents being introduced to prove the truth
of their contents, Sealant's objection is to hearsay. That objection is resolved in TEK's favor in
light of the party-admission exclusion. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2).
Sealant has also raised an objection based on unfair prejudice. Fed. R. Evid. 403. That
objection is resolved in TEK's favor as well. The exhibits are circumstantial evidence of copying
a commercial embodiment. Although the probative value of the exhibits is limited, it is not so

heavily outweighed by the risk of confusion or unfair prejudice as to prevent the exhibits from
being shown to the jury. The Court is cognizant of the risks associated with admitting evidence
of copying. But the jury must be allowed to fulfill its role even where the evidence is
inconclusive or indirect. As discussed previously, the Court is prepared to give the jury an
instruction explaining the limited purpose for which evidence of copying is admitted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 12, 2017
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2