Rearden LLC et al v. The Walt Disney Company et al

Filing 607

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT DISNEY'S MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER SEVEN by Judge Jon S. Tigar denying 494 Motion in Limine.(mll, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2023)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

REARDEN LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-04006-JST

v.
THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
DISNEY'S MOTION IN LIMINE
NUMBER SEVEN
Re: ECF No. 494

12
13

Now before the Court is Defendant Walt Disney Pictures’s motion for an order precluding

14

Plaintiff Rearden LLC from presenting any evidence or argument regarding any copyright notice

15

on MOVA output files under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403. ECF No. 494. The

16

Court will deny the motion.

17

Disney contends that the copyright notice “does not make the claim that Rearden has a

18

copyright in the Mova Contour software program. Instead, it claims a copyright in output files

19

generated after . . . the Mova Contour software program was complete.” ECF No. 494 at 3–4

20

(citations and emphasis omitted). Disney’s argument is essentially that the copyright notice is not

21

directed to the specific work at issue in this case. See id. at 3 (“The copyright notice that Rearden

22

seeks to introduce at trial is not attached to the Mova Contour software program that Rearden

23

claims was copied and infringed in this case.”). But that does not make the notice irrelevant. As

24

in Broderbund Software, Inc. v. Unison World, Inc., the notice here “implies that the copyright

25

holder claims protection for as much of the work as is allowable under the copyright laws.” 648

26

F. Supp. 1127, 1135 (N.D. Cal. 1986). Thus, the notice has potential evidentiary value.

27
28

Disney also argues that the copyright notices were “removed before any MOVA output
work was delivered to [Disney],” such that Disney could not have seen them. ECF No. 494 at 4.

1

But Disney’s only evidence for this point is the testimony of Greg LaSalle. See ECF No. 495-2 at

2

4–5.1 LaSalle testified that he used software that automatically removed the copyright notices

3

before transferring the content files to the entity that would give them to Disney. But LaSalle has

4

always contested Rearden’s ownership of the MOVA technology, and thus has his own reasons for

5

wanting to avoid a finding of copyright infringement by either DD3 or Disney. Given that bias,

6

the jury may choose to disbelieve his testimony.
The Court concludes that the testimony is relevant and not unduly prejudicial. Disney’s

7
8

motion is therefore denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated: November 28, 2023
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Disney also cites the deposition testimony of Steve Perlman, but in that testimony Perlman
merely acknowledges that it is possible to remove the copyright notice, not that anyone actually
did so.
2