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

Filing 618

PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on December 3, 2023. (Entered by Jon S. Tigar) (Filed on 12/3/2023)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
REARDEN LLC, et al.,

7

Plaintiffs,

8

PRETRIAL ORDER

v.

9

THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, et al.,

10

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-04006-JST

12
The Court now rules as follows regarding certain disputes raised in the parties’ Revised

13
14

Joint Pretrial Conference Statement, ECF No. 593, and Revised Joint Proposed and Disputed Jury

15

Instructions, ECF No. 594.

16

I.

Construing Disney’s argument as a motion in limine, the motion is denied.

17
18
19
20
21

Evidence of the Injunction/Post-Injunction Conduct (ECF No. 593 at 23)

II.

Jury Instructions Re SHST Decisions (ECF No. 593 at 28)
The Court will give the following instructions:
Special Instruction No. 1: The SHST Statement of Decision and Appeal
You [will hear/have heard] about a prior lawsuit between Rearden and a company called

22

Shezhenshi Haitiecheng Science and Technology Co. Ltd., which I will refer to as “SHST.”

23

SHST was an affiliate of DD3. On August 11, 2017, the trial court in the SHST lawsuit issued a

24

decision finding that Rearden, and not DD3 or its affiliates, owned the MOVA assets. The judge

25

also ordered DD3 to return the MOVA assets to Rearden. On July 31, 2020, the appellate court

26

affirmed the trial court’s decision.

27
28

The defendant in this case, Walt Disney Pictures, was not a party to the SHST case and is
not legally bound by the final judgment in that case. In determining whether Greg LaSalle owned

1

MOVA Contour, whether he owned MO2, and whether he was authorized to transfer MOVA

2

Contour to SHST, you are instructed to make your own determination based on the evidence

3

presented in this trial. You should consider this instruction and the documents and testimony of

4

the witnesses presented at trial as evidence in making that determination.
Special Instruction No. 2: The SHST Preliminary Injunction Order

5

You [will hear/have heard] that on June 17, 2016 the judge in the lawsuit between SHST

6
7

and Rearden entered a preliminary injunction that ordered DD3 to stop using the MOVA Contour,

8

and ordering VGH to serve a copy of the injunction on all studios that DD3 was working with

9

using MOVA Contour. The Court did not rule at that time on Rearden’s claims that it owned

10

MOVA Contour.
It has been decided earlier in this case that Walt Disney Pictures is not liable for any

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

infringement by DD3 that may have occurred after the preliminary injunction was issued on June

13

17, 2016.

14

III.

Vicarious Liability Instruction (ECF No. 593 at 36)
The Court will give Plaintiff’s proposed instruction 17.20, except that the Court will insert

15
16

the word “practical” before the word “ability” in numbered paragraph two.

17

IV.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendant’s Pre-Authenticated Business Records & Other Exhibits (ECF No. 593 at
41)
The Court finds that the documents authenticated by the Declaration of Ryan Stankevich

are business records. See MRT Const. Inc. v. Hardrives, Inc., 158 F.3d 478, 483–84 (9th Cir.
1998). At the November 30, 2023 pretrial conference, Rearden objected that the records contain
hearsay-within-hearsay, specifically statements of persons who had viewed Beauty and the Beast.
See ECF No. 617 at 56 (“I also think it’s a document-by-document decision in the sense that some
of these marketing surveys contain hearsay within hearsay. In other words, there’s surveys of
individuals who have seen the movie.”). Disney does not believe the documents contain hearsay
within hearsay, but agrees that the question would need to be addressed on a document-bydocument basis. ECF No. 617 at 57. Because the argument arose for the first time at the
conference, it has not been briefed. Ultimately, however, the Court need not receive further
2

1

briefing, these documents fall within the parties’ agreement to stipulate to the admissibility of pre-

2

authenticated business records, and to all expert witnesses to sponsor such exhibits at trial. See

3

ECF No. 550 at 13. That conclusion, combined with the Court’s ruling that the documents in

4

question are business records, is sufficient to overrule Rearden’s objection to these exhibits.

5

V.

Disney’s objection to this evidence is overruled.

6
7
8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Evidence of MOVA’s Ownership Prior to August 2012 (ECF No. 593 at 51)

VI.

Remaining Preliminary Jury Instruction Disputes (ECF No. 594)
The Court will give Plaintiff’s proposed Instruction 1.5. The Court will give Plaintiff’s

proposed Instruction 17.1, except that the Court will insert the word “practical” before the word

10

“ability,” as requested by Defendant.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated: December 3, 2023
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3