Barrington Music Products Inc v. Guitar Center Stores, Inc. et al

Filing 116

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The court directs counsel to submit a revised proposed pretrial order forthwith. The court GRANTS Barrington's 99 Request for Judicial Notice of the Vento marks' ownership and validity; DENIES Barrington&# 039;s 115 MOTION for Oral Argument; and OVERRULES, as a pretrial matter, 107 Barrington's objections to defendants' rebuttal expert Joshua Lathrop and Dr. Jeffrey Stec's expert testimony. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/10/18. (jld)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
BARRINGTON MUSIC
PRODUCTS, INC..
Plaintiff,
vs.
MUSIC ARTS CENTERS, GUITAR
CENTER STORES, INC., EASTMAN
MUSIC COMPANY, and WOODWIND
& BRASSWIND, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:16-cv-006-RLM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A few matters pend in relation to the trial set to begin on May 16.
Barrington asks for oral argument on two of those matters, but scheduling oral
argument would delay the court’s ruling, and the court believes it has enough
information, or is not likely to gain more information necessary for a pre-trial
ruling. Accordingly, the court denies Barrington's motion for oral argument
[Doc. No. 115].
A.
At the pretrial conference, when the court addressed Barrington's motion
to have judicial notice taken of the ownership and validity of the trademark at
issue, the defendants came forth with a factual offer. In light of that offer, the
court invited the parties to submit briefs on the issue. They have done so.

Barrington asks that the court take judicial notice that it (or its
predecessor) registered the VENTO® marks with the USPTO on August 10,
2010 and submitted combined declarations of use and inconstestability with
the trademark office on August 10, 2016. Based on those facts, which can be
accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot
reasonably be challenged, see Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2), Barrington asks the
court to further notice that its marks are incontestable under 15 U.S.C. §
1605.
The defendants respond that VMB, LLC, and not Barrington, registered
the VENTO® marks. Barrington produced a document that purports to be an
assignment of the marks from VMB to Barrington on December 31, 2013. In
February 2015, VMB sent a cease–and–desist letter to the defendants. A week
later, the Indiana Secretary of State dissolved VMB. At the beginning of April
2015, VMB filed the trademark assignment to Barrington with the USPTO.
Dennis Bamber, who the court understands to have been a principal of both
VMB and Barrington, testified at his deposition that he couldn’t remember
exactly when the trademark assignment was signed.
From these facts—which Barrington apparently doesn’t dispute—the
defendants argue that either VMB couldn’t effectively transfer the marks to
Barrington with the April 2015 notice to the USPTO because it had ceased to
exist when the Secretary of State dissolved in February, or VMB assigned the

2

marks to Barrington in December 2013 and so misrepresented the marks’
ownership when VMB sent the cease–and–desist letter in February 2015.
The defendants’ arguments don’t appear to have anything to do with the
marks’ incontestability, which in turn defeats the defendants’ arguments. The
undisputed facts relating to the filings with the USPTO make the VENTO®
marks incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065, which amounts to “conclusive
evidence of . . . the registrant’s ownership of the mark . . .” subject to nine
specific defenses allowed despite incontestability, 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b), and the
defendants don’t link their argument to any of those nine specific defenses.
Beyond that, the series of events the defendants relate don’t undermine
Barrington’s contention that the right to the marks passed from VMB to
Barrington when the assignment was filed with the USPTO. The defendants
assume that once it was dissolved, VMB couldn’t transfer anything. That
overstates the limits on what a dissolved corporation can do under Indiana law:
“A dissolved corporation continues it corporate existence but may not carry on
any business except that appropriate to wind up and liquidate its business and
affairs, including . . . disposing of it properties that will not be distributed in
kind to its shareholders . . . .” Ind. Code. § 23-1-45-5-(a)(2). Mr. Bamber’s
inability to recall when the assignment was signed doesn’t matter.
The court GRANTS Barrington’s request for judicial notice of the Vento
marks’ ownership and validity [Doc. No. 99].

3

B.
Barrington seeks to exclude all or part of the testimony of defense expert
Dr.

Jeffrey

A.

Stec.

The

principal

argument

relates

to

the

implied

characterization of Dr. Stec as a rebuttal expert. The scheduling order set a
January 31 deadline for expert disclosures “from a party with the burden of
proof,” and a March 30 deadline for expert disclosures “from a party offering a
rebuttal expert report . . . .” The defendants identified Dr. Stec and served his
report on March 30. His report claims only to “review and critically evaluate”
the expert disclosures of Jeffrey Samuels, who was disclosed as an expert
witness for Barrington. Barrington has decided not to present Mr. Samuels’s
opinion, and so contends that Dr. Stec has nothing to rebut. Barrington also
argues that to the extent some of Dr. Stec’s opinions might be offered on some
other theory, those opinions are based on flawed methodology.
The court overrules, as a pretrial matter, Barrington’s objections to Dr.
Stec’s testimony. Barrington might well be right that its decision not to call Mr.
Samuels will make anything Dr. Stec has to say irrelevant or inadmissible.
Because he wasn’t disclosed by January, the court would be hard–pressed to
allow him to offer opinions that are relevant only to issues on which the
defendants bear the burden of proof. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). But expert
testimony isn’t the only thing an expert can rebut. The court can’t say that

4

even without Mr. Samuels, Barrington’s case in chief won’t include evidence for
which an opinion in Dr. Stec’s report might be admissible in rebuttal.
Barrington’s arguments concerning the admissibility of Dr. Stec’s
opinions under Fed. R. Evid. 702 aren’t persuasive as justification for a
preemptive pretrial exclusion. First, Barrington surprisingly implies that Dr.
Stec can’t offer opinions based on “self serving” testimony from Barrington’s
Rule 30(b)(6). Setting aside the question of whose interest a witness’s testimony
is allowed to serve, see, e.g., United States v. Sklena, 692 F.3d 725, 733 (7th
Cir. 2012) (“To say that evidence is “self–serving” tells us practically nothing: a
great deal of perfectly admissible testimony fits this description.”), experts can
base opinions on information of a sort others in the field routinely and
reasonably rely, and the court has seen nothing to suggest that experts don’t
routinely and reasonably rely on information from knowledgeable people within
the corporate hierarchy.
Second, Barrington sets forth its reasons for thinking that Dr. Stec’s
methodologies are substandard. There’s layman’s logic in what Barrington
says, but Barrington doesn’t support its critique with any information from the
field of expertise. One reason courts allow expert testimony is that what science
knows might be counter–intuitive to a layperson. See, e.g., United States v.
Bartlett, 567 F.3d 901, 906 (7th Cir. 2009) (psychological research on accuracy
of eyewitness identification might be admissible because it contradicts what

5

most people think). Barrington’s criticisms seem better suited for cross
examination.
For these reasons, while objections are trial might be well–taken, the
court overrules, as a pretrial matter, Barrington’s objections to Dr. Jeffrey
Stec’s expert testimony [Doc. No. 107].

C.
The same general principles lead the court to overrule Barrington’s
objections to anticipated testimony of Joshua Lathrop. One difference between
Mr. Lathrop and Dr. Stec is that there will be a Barrington expert for Mr.
Lathrop to rebut. The difference is crucial because the court can’t know what
part of Mr. Lathrop’s testimony will be strictly rebuttal until it hears the
testimony of Barrington expert McSorely. The court agrees with the general
principle on which Barrington relies—that a rebuttal witness ordinarily can’t,
under the case management order entered in his case, offer independent
opinions on which the party calling him bears the burden of proof—but a
rebuttal witness can (within the scope of his disclosure) explain why the
opinion being rebutted is wrong. There is a fine line between offering one’s own
opinion on a topic and explaining why another’s opinion on the topic in
mistaken; that line can be difficult to find at trial, and is nearly impossible to
identify before trial.

6

To the extent Barrington’s objections are based on reliability of
methodology, as with Dr. Stec, the court finds the objections either impossible
to decide before trial, or as raising questions for cross-examination rather than
pretrial exclusion.
The court overrules, as a pretrial matter, Barrington’s objections to the
defendants’ rebuttal expert Joshua Lathrop [Doc. No. 107].

D.
On a different topic, at the final pretrial conference, the court asked
Barrington’s counsel to submit a revised proposed pretrial order, including the
submissions that came after Barrington had to file the original proposed
pretrial order. None has been filed; the court assumes the request has fallen
between the tracks of trial preparation. The court directs counsel to submit a
revised proposed pretrial order forthwith.
E.
For the foregoing reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS Barrington’s request for judicial notice of the Vento marks'
ownership and validity [Doc. No. 99];
(2) DENIES Barrington's motion for oral argument [Doc. No. 115]; and

7

(3) OVERRULES, as a pretrial matter, Barrington's objections to
defendants’ rebuttal expert Joshua Lathrop and Dr. Jeffrey Stec's expert
testimony [Doc. No. 107].

SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: May 10, 2018

/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Robert L. Miller, Jr., Judge
United States District Court

8