Atari Interactive, Inc. v. Redbubble, Inc.
Filing
213
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXCLUDE LIVE GAMEPLAY DEMONSTRATIONS AND NON-PRODUCED GAMEPLAY VIDEOS by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 209 Motion. (Entered by Judge Jon S. Tigar) (Filed on 10/24/2021)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
ATARI INTERACTIVE, INC.,
7
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
REDBUBBLE, INC.,
10
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 18-cv-03451-JST
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
EXCLUDE LIVE GAMEPLAY
DEMONSTRATIONS AND NONPRODUCED GAMEPLAY VIDEOS
Re: ECF No. 209
12
13
This is a trademark and copyright infringement case. Plaintiff Atari Interactive, Inc.
14
(“Atari”) alleges, among other things, that Defendant Redbubble, Inc. (“Redbubble”) infringed the
15
copyright in the graphics and artwork of certain Atari video games. Atari recently announced its
16
intention to use an Atari 2600 console at trial to perform a live gameplay demonstration of
17
unspecified video games or, alternatively, to create recorded videos of gameplay which Atari
18
would play during trial. Redbubble now moves to exclude such live demonstration or videos
19
because none of the games or videos were produced in discovery or at any other time. ECF No.
20
209. Because Atari’s failure to produce the videos and games violated Atari’s discovery
21
obligations, its failure was not substantially justified, and use of these materials would unfairly
22
prejudice Redbubble, the Court will grant the motion.1
Atari included on its trial exhibit list an “Atari 2600 Console, Joystick, and Games,” ECF
23
24
No. 163-6 at 14, which Redbubble originally moved to exclude. Atari responded in opposition
25
that it had only recently come into possession of the console. ECF No. 186 at 3. It also argued
26
that “other photos and depictions of Atari 2600s were produced, with the console being Atari’s
27
28
1
The Court has determined that this motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument. See
Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).
1
most iconic product . . . . There is nothing prejudicial about introducing the actual console as an
2
exhibit at trial.” Id. (citation and parenthetical omitted). After reviewing this opposition,
3
Redbubble withdrew its motion as to the console exhibit. ECF No. 209 at 7. It now contends that
4
“Atari’s statements conveyed that Atari intended to use the console to show the appearance of the
5
console, as would ‘photos and depictions of Atari 2600s,’ rather than powering it on to perform a
6
live gameplay demonstration” and that “Atari’s [prior] opposition made no reference to games at
7
all.” Id. Redbubble does not object to the display of the game console to the jury as a physical
8
object. It does object, however, to the live demonstration of the video games the console is
9
capable of playing.
10
Redbubble does not dispute that it produced neither the physical Atari 2600 Console nor
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
any gameplay videos during fact discovery, even though they were responsive to Redbubble’s
12
requests for production. It also does not dispute that it failed to disclose gameplay videos or a
13
planned live gameplay demonstration on its trial exhibit list. It argues, nonetheless, that it
14
disclosed its intent to use the Atari 2600 by disclosing photographs of the Atari 2600 in discovery.
15
ECF No. 211 at 3. It further contends that “the console was mentioned throughout the depositions
16
of both Casandra Brown (Atari’s Director of Licensing) and Fred Chesnais (Atari’s ex-CEO),
17
including by Redbubble’s counsel. All involved knew that the Atari 2600 console was an iconic
18
product sold by Atari, and the game system on which many of the iconic games could be played.”
19
ECF No. 211 at 3 (citations and parentheticals omitted).
20
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) requires parties to disclose the witnesses “that the
21
disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i). Rule
22
26(e) requires parties to supplement their disclosures “in a timely manner if the party learns that in
23
some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or
24
corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the
25
discovery process or in writing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A). “If a party fails to provide
26
information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use
27
that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the
28
failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).
2
In addition to, or instead of, that sanction, the court may also impose any of the other
1
2
appropriate sanctions provided for in Rule 37. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(C). “The party facing
3
sanctions bears the burden of proving that its failure to disclose the required information was
4
substantially justified or is harmless.” R & R Sails, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of Pa., 673 F.3d 1240, 1246
5
(9th Cir. 2012).
The Court finds that neither the disclosure of photographs of the Atari 2600 nor the late
6
7
disclosure of the physical console satisfied Atari’s obligation to disclose gameplay videos or
8
Atari’s intent to use the console for purposes of live demonstration at trial. Nor did the reference
9
by certain witnesses to the physical console constitute sufficient “additional or corrective
information . . . made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.” Fed.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A).
Atari argues that Redbubble should have propounded a request for inspection of the Atari
12
13
2600 console when Atari produced photographs of it. ECF No. 211 at 3. This argument is
14
unpersuasive. Atari has represented that it only came into possession of the physical console
15
recently. If this representation was accurate, then at the time it produced Atari 2600 photographs
16
to Redbubble it had no physical console to inspect. It also is unclear how physical inspection of
17
the console pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would have put
18
Redbubble on sufficient notice of the videos or gameplay Atari intends to show the jury.
19
The Court further finds that Atari’s failure to produce these materials previously was
20
neither substantially justified nor harmless. The parties are literally on the eve of trial – jury
21
selection will occur tomorrow – and there is no reason this evidence could not have been produced
22
earlier. As the Court observed in connection with an earlier motion to exclude, “[b]ecause Atari
23
created the evidence, the timing of its creation was solely within Atari’s control. It could have
24
created and produced it within the discovery cut-off period. Because it did not do so, the evidence
25
must be excluded.” ECF No. 197 at 13-14.
26
///
27
///
28
///
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
So it is here. Redbubble’s motion to exclude any live demonstrations of video games or
recorded videos of gameplay is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 24, 2021
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
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
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?