Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v. RK Texas Leather MFG et al

Filing 119

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Application to Utilize Deposition and Trial Testimony Given in Other Cases. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 1/11/12.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cge)(jrd)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

BRIGHTON COLLECTIBLES, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
RK TEXAS LEATHER, INC., et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

Civil No. 10-0419-AJB(WVG)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION TO UTILIZE
DEPOSITION AND TRIAL
TESTIMONY GIVEN IN OTHER
CASES

17
18

On October 31, 2011, Plaintiff Brighton Collectibles, Inc.

19

(“Plaintiff”) applied to the Court, via letter, to be permitted to

20

utilize certain deposition and trial testimony given by third party

21

witnesses in other cases. On November 16, and 23, 2011, Defendants

22

Joy Max Trading, Inc. and NHW, Inc. (“Defendants”) opposed, via

23

letters, Plaintiff’s application. On January 5, 2011, the Court held

24

a hearing on Plaintiff’s application. The Court, having reviewed

25

Plaintiff’s

26

authority cited therein, as well as the supplemental authority cited

27

at the hearing, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, HEREBY DENIES Plaintiff’s

28

application.

application,

Defendants’

1

opposition

letters,

10cv0419

the

1

I

2

PRIOR TESTIMONY

3

Plaintiff seeks to use in this action, testimony given by

4

third party witnesses in previous actions in which it was involved.

5

The testimony and cases in which the testimony was given are as

6

follows:

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

1. Deposition testimony of Monica Bolin in Brighton Collectibles v. Marc Chantal USA, Case No. 06-1584.
2. Deposition testimony of Richard A. Lewis in Brighton
Collectibles v. Marc Chantal USA, Case No. 06-1584.
3. Deposition testimony of Richard A. Lewis in Brighton
Collectibles v. Dynasty Designs, Case No. 06-1588.
4.

Deposition

testimony

of

Cindy

Lombardi

in

Brighton

Collectibles v. Dynasty Designs, Case No. 06-1588.
5.

Deposition testimony of Sheila Bell in Brighton Collect-

ibles v. Dynasty Designs, Case No. 06-1588.
6.

Deposition

testimony

of

Steven

Zamler

in

Brighton

Collectibles v. Dynasty Designs, Case No. 06-1588.
7.

Trial Testimony of Amy Delducco in Brighton Collectibles

v. Coldwater Creek, Case No. 06-1848.

21

II

22

PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENTS

23
24
25

Plaintiff supports its application by positing the following
arguments:
1.

The request to utilize the prior testimony is necessary

26

in order to eliminate the undue expense to Plaintiff, of traveling

27

to fives states and taking seven depositions that will duplicate

28

what has already been discovered in similar cases. Fullerform

2

10cv0419

1

Continuous Pipe Corp. v. American Pipe & Constr. Co., 44 F.R.D. 453

2

(D. AZ 1968);

3

2.

The evidence falls within the hearsay exception under

4

Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1). The prior defendants, Marc

5

Chantal, Dynasty Designs, and Coldwater Creek, are “predecessors in

6

interest” to the current Defendants, as the current Defendants have

7

similar motives to cross-examine the prior witnesses as the prior

8

defendants that questioned the witnesses. Hynix Semiconductor, Inc.

9

v. Rambus, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 452, 458 (N.D. Cal. 2008);

10

3. The evidence is relevant to establish “secondary meaning”

11

acquired by Plaintiff. Plaintiff notes that prior testimony in prior

12

cases was allowed in subsequent cases, pursuant to the predecessor-

13

in-interest exception to Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1).

14

III

15

DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENTS

16

Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s application by arguing:

17

1. The prior testimony is inadmissible hearsay pursuant to

18

Federal Rule of Evidence 801. The testimony may only be admitted

19

when the witness is unavailable; and if the party against whom the

20

testimony is now offered–or, in a civil case, whose “predecessor in

21

interest,” had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the

22

testimony by direct, cross-, or redirect examination. Federal Rule

23

of Evidence 804(b)(1).

24

2.

The witnesses are available because Plaintiff asserts

25

that its application allows Defendants the opportunity to depose the

26

witnesses should they choose to do so. However, Plaintiffs must show

27

that the witnesses are unavailable, not only for trial, but for

28

deposition as well, in order to avoid taking a new deposition and

3

10cv0419

1

admitting prior deposition testimony. In re Master Key Antitrust

2

Litigation, 72 F.R.D. 108 (D. CT 1976).

3

3.

Marc Chantal, Dynasty Designs, and Coldwater Creek are

4

not “predecessors in interest” to any Defendants in this case.

5

Therefore, Defendants have not had the opportunity to cross-examine

6

the witnesses at the time of the prior testimony and have not had

7

the opportunity to develop the testimony. Therefore, the prior

8

testimony should not be admitted in evidence. Plaintiff should

9

incur the costs to depose the witnesses if it desires to use the

10

prior testimony at trial, and allow Defendants the opportunity to

11

properly cross-examine the witnesses.

12

4.

Even though Plaintiff frames its application as an

13

attempt to save costs, granting the application actually shifts the

14

costs and burdens to Defendants to travel to various states to

15

depose the witnesses.

16
17
18

IV
PLAINTIFF FAILS TO SHOW THAT THE WITNESSES ARE UNAVAILABLE;
UTILIZING THE PRIOR TESTIMONY IS NOT COST EFFICIENT;
THE PRIOR DEFENDANTS ARE NOT “PREDECESSORS IN INTEREST” TO
THE CURRENT DEFENDANTS

19
Federal Rule of Evidence 804 states in pertinent part:
20
21
22
23
24

...
(b) the following are not excluded by the rule against
hearsay if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:
(1) Testimony that:
(B) is now offered against a party who had- or, in a civil
case, whose predecessor in interest had- an opportunity and similar
motive to develop it by direct, cross-, or redirect examination.
(emphasis added).

25

A.

26

Defendants assert, and Plaintiff concedes, that the witnesses

27

from the prior litigations are available for deposition. Defendants

28

rely on In re Master Key, 72 F.R.D. at 110 n.1 (D. CT 1976), in

The Witnesses Are Available For Deposition

4

10cv0419

1

which the court found, that for purposes of admitting the prior

2

deposition of a witness in evidence at trial, it was not enough to

3

prove that the witness was unavailable at trial. Rather, the

4

proponent must also show that the witness is unavailable for

5

deposition. Id.

6

order that did not contain one witness’ name, thereby, making that

7

witness unavailable for trial. The court required a showing that the

8

witness was also unavailable for deposition before admitting in

9

evidence the prior deposition testimony. Id. at 110.

However, in that case, the court issued an earlier

10

In Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 2011 WL

11

2325231 (N.D. Cal. 2011), the court noted that the proponent must

12

first show that the witnesses were unavailable for trial, however

13

that could not have been known until trial had begun. Id., at *1.

14

At this time, the court does not know whether Plaintiff has

15

tried to secure these witnesses for trial in the current litigation.

16

Nevertheless, it is unlikely that they will agree to testify at

17

trial on Plaintiff’s behalf due to the fact that they reside in

18

states other than California. However, the witnesses are available

19

for their depositions to be taken. Therefore, the Court finds that

20

Plaintiff has failed to show that the witnesses are unavailable, in

21

accordance with Federal Rule of Evidence 804.

22

B. The Granting of Plaintiff’s Application Will Not Result In
Economic Efficiency

23
Plaintiff relies on Fullerform Continuous Pipe Corp. v.
24
American Pipe & Constr. Co., 44 F.R.D. 453 (D. AZ 1968), to support
25
its argument that Defendants’ opportunity to depose the witnesses
26
allows admission of their prior testimony. Fullerform provided such
27
relief to avoid needless waste of time, money and effort and to
28
expedite litigation. Id., at 456.
5

Fullerform involved defendants
10cv0419

1

that were accused of being involved in a conspiracy that was first

2

uncovered in a prior litigation. Id., at 455. Some defendants in

3

Fullerform were also parties to the prior litigation, and the

4

overall deposition examination in the prior litigation focused on an

5

industry-wide conspiracy which gave all the defendants a motive and

6

interest to develop the deposition testimony. Id. Therefore, the

7

court’s decision to admit the deposition testimony of 26 prior

8

witnesses was to avoid duplicative work. Granting the Fullerform

9

defendants an opportunity to depose the same witnesses to clarify

10

any ambiguities in the prior testimony rested on judicial and

11

economic efficiency. Id., at 456. When a court entertains admission

12

of prior testimony, the underlying objective is efficiency at trial

13

without jeopardizing accurate fact finding.

14

682 F.2d 776, 778 (9th Cir. 1982).

15

Here,

Plaintiff’s

proposal

does

Hub v. Sun Valley Co.,

not

actually

result

in

16

economic efficiency. Plaintiff claims that it should not be required

17

to incur the costs to re-depose the prior witnesses, since it sued

18

the prior defendants for trade dress, copyright and trademark

19

infringement and questioned the witnesses in connection with those

20

claims. Furthermore, Plaintiff contends that the prior defendants

21

had similar motives and interests as the current Defendants to

22

develop the prior witnesses’ testimony.

23

However, the court finds that each prior suit was specific to

24

the prior defendants and the products that they designed, manufac-

25

tured and marketed. Unlike Fullerform, Plaintiff does not allege a

26

conspiracy

27

Plaintiff asserts that the current Defendants have the opportunity

28

to depose the prior witnesses, but does not identify any particular

between

the

prior

and

6

current

Defendants.

Further,

10cv0419

1

issues explored in the prior depositions that the Court should

2

consider to be fully developed, in order to efficiently limit the

3

scope

4

application does not propose a remedy that is efficient in time,

5

money or effort, or expedites litigation, for anyone except itself.

6

As a result, as a matter of efficiency, the Court cannot limit the

7

scope of any future depositions.

8

of

C.

any

subsequent

depositions.

Therefore,

Plaintiff’s

Marc Chantal, Coldwater Creek & Dynasty Designs Are Not
“Predecessors in Interest” To The Current Defendants

9
10

A “predecessor in interest” is a party that has had an

11

opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct,

12

cross-, or redirect examination, in the previous proceeding. United

13

States v. Geiger, 263 F.3d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir. 2001). Instead of a

14

formalistic privity-based test of whether a party is a “predecessor

15

in interest,” the test is “inherently factual” and depends on the

16

similarity of issues and context of questioning. Privity is not the

17

gravamen of the analysis. Instead, the party against whom the prior

18

deposition is offered must point to distinctions in its case not

19

evident in the earlier litigation that would preclude similar

20

motives of the witness’ examination. In Hub, supra at 778 n.*, the

21

court found “troubling” a rule that accepts, as a substitute for the

22

present opponent’s examination, a prior adversary’s examination in

23

a prior proceeding when the adversary had an interest to induce a

24

thorough testing by examination. The court stated such an approach

25

fails to take into account that the adversary in the prior proceed-

26

ing is not the same as the adversary in the current proceeding and

27

the possibility that the prior adversary mishandled the cross-

28

examination. Id.

7

10cv0419

1

Here, the current Defendants were not parties to the actions

2

against prior defendants Marc Chantal, Dynasty Designs or Coldwater

3

Creek. Therefore, those prior defendants did not question the

4

witnesses about the current Defendants’ products, or the design or

5

marketing

6

relationship has not been formed. In the prior cases, Plaintiff sued

7

the prior defendants for selling products that were similar to

8

Plaintiff’s products such that they infringed upon its trade dress,

9

trademarks and copyrights. Though Plaintiff’s prior claims may be

10

similar and perhaps identical to the current claims, at issue in

11

each prior case was whether the prior defendants’ conduct resulted

12

in the harm that Plaintiff claimed. Each party owned, created and

13

distributed their own products. Unlike the cases that Plaintiff

14

cites

15

witnesses, the prior testimony here was as to specific and distinct

16

actions regarding different infringing products. The majority of the

17

prior testimony that Plaintiff seeks to utilize discuss the specific

18

actions of the prior defendants. The prior defendants had no

19

interest in developing the testimony when statements were made

20

regarding the specific actions of the current Defendants. Therefore,

21

the prior defendants are not “predecessors in interest” to the

thereof.

regarding

As

similar

a

result,

motives

a

and

“predecessor

interest

to

in

interest”

depose

prior

22
23
24

current Defendants because they did not have similar motives and

25

interests in developing the testimony.1/ Hub, supra, at 778.

26
27
28

1/

The cases cited by Plaintiff at the hearing, Runge v. Stanley Fastening
Systems, 2011 WL 6755161 (S.D. IN 2011) and Pesterfield v. Sunbeam Corp., 2005 WL
1076293 (E.D. TN 2005), are clearly distinguishable. In those cases, the proponent
wanted to use deposition testimony given in prior cases in which the defendants
in the prior cases were parties. Here, Plaintiffs seeks to utilize prior testimony
in cases in which the current Defendants were not parties.

8

10cv0419

1

As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s application to

2

utilize deposition and trial testimony given in other cases is

3

DENIED. If Plaintiff so chooses, it may depose the witnesses noted

4

in Section I of this Order. At the depositions, Defendants may

5

cross-examine the witnesses with respect to issues raised in this

6

action.

7
8
9
10

DATED:

January 11, 2012

11
12
Hon. William V. Gallo
U.S. Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9

10cv0419