Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. et al v. AVELA., Inc. et al

Filing 208

ORDER granting 176 Motion in Limine. The Court will grant Plaintiffs motion as to the specifically identified exhibits. (see Order for further details)The Court also will grant Plaintiffs motion to the extent it seeks to preventDefendants from pr oducing at trial any new documents or eliciting testimony regarding unauthorized third party use outside the parameters of what the parties have exchanged in discovery. The discovery deadline has passed, and production of any new documents or evidenc e would prejudice Plaintiff. This Court previously denied Defendants motion to reopen discovery on this issue, and the Court will not revisit the matter. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 8/31/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SD)

Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. et al v. AVELA., Inc. et al

Doc. 208

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 P re se n tly before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine #6 to Exclude E v id e n c e of Unauthorized Third Party Use of Bob Marley's Identity and Persona (Doc. # 1 7 6 ), filed June 14, 2010. Defendants filed an Opposition (Doc. #187) on July 7, 2010. Plaintiffs filed a Reply (Doc. #202) on July 16, 2010. P la in tif f s move to preclude exhibits attached to Douglas Winter's Declaration f ile d in support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Adjudication w h ic h relate to unauthorized third party use of Bob Marley's identity. Plaintiffs contend th e s e exhibits are unauthenticated hearsay. Plaintiffs also move to preclude any unproduced d o c u m e n ts and to prevent disclosure of testimony regarding such unauthorized third party u s e . Plaintiffs contend this issue has been live since Plaintiffs filed the Complaint, and D e f e n d a n ts should have produced or conducted relevant discovery if they intended to rely o n such evidence at trial. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT D IS T R IC T OF NEVADA *** ) F IF T Y -S IX HOPE ROAD MUSIC, LTD., ) a Bahamian corporation; and ZION ) R O O T S W E A R , LLC, a Flordia limited ) lia b ility company, ) ) P la in tif f s , ) ) v. ) ) A .V .E .L .A ., INC., a Nevada corporation; ) a n d LEO VALENCIA, an individual, ) ) Defendants. ) )

2 :0 8 -C V -0 0 1 0 5 -P M P -P A L ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

D e f e n d a n ts respond that Plaintiffs never asserted trademark rights in Bob M a rle y's identity until summary judgment, and thus discovery regarding unauthorized third p a rty use of Bob Marley's identity was not pursued. Defendants contend they specifically a s k e d for discovery relating to unauthorized third party use of Bob Marley's name, likeness, o r image, and Plaintiffs responded that such information was irrelevant. Defendants thus re q u e s t the Court order Plaintiffs to produce documents in their possession which reflect the u n a u th o riz e d use of Bob Marley's name and image. As to the specific exhibits Plaintiffs id e n tif y, Defendants contend the Court should defer ruling on them until trial. T h e Court will grant Plaintiff's motion as to the specifically identified exhibits. Defendants' counsel is not a witness in this case, and will not be available to authenticate th e Google printout or the printout of the Wolfgang's Vault website. Even if another w itn e s s could authenticate the printouts, Defendants present no evidence or testimony in d ic a tin g that they could discern which entries on the printouts show authorized versus u n a u th o riz e d uses of Bob Marley's image. As to the CNN article, the article is hearsay and D e f e n d a n ts have not identified any hearsay exception or nonhearsay use for the article. The Court also will grant Plaintiff's motion to the extent it seeks to prevent D e f e n d a n ts from producing at trial any new documents or eliciting testimony regarding u n a u th o riz e d third party use outside the parameters of what the parties have exchanged in d is c o v e ry. The discovery deadline has passed, and production of any new documents or e v id e n c e would prejudice Plaintiff. This Court previously denied Defendants' motion to re o p e n discovery on this issue, and the Court will not revisit the matter.

DATED: August 31, 2010 _______________________________ PHILIP M. PRO United States District Judge

2