Roger Cleveland Golf Company Inc v. Prince et al

Filing 137

REPLY to Response to Motion re 127 MOTION for Attorney Fees Response filed by Roger Cleveland Golf Company Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Jury Trial Discussions excerpt, # 2 Exhibit B - Verdict Form, # 3 Exhibit C - 9.29.10 ltr & Amended Notices of Depos to Doolittle, # 4 Exhibit D - Rolex v. Brown, # 5 Exhibit E - Chanel v. French, # 6 Exhibit F - Rolex v. Jones, # 7 Exhibit G - Lorillard Tobacco v. S&M Central Serv. Corp., # 8 Exhibit H - Employers Council v. Feltman, # 9 Exhibit I - Rodgers v. Anderson, # 10 Exhibit J - Silhouette v. Chakhbazian)(McElwaine, John)

Exhibit A

1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

ROGER CLEVELAND GOLF
COMPANY, INC.,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
VERSUS
)
)
)
CHRISTOPHER PRINCE, PRINCE
)
DISTRIBUTION, LLC, and
)
BRIGHT BUILDERS, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
----------------------------)

C/A No. 2:09-2119-MBS

Columbia, SC
March 8 & 9, 2011

12
13
14

EXCERPTS OF JURY TRIAL
DISCUSSIONS RE JURY CHARGES AND MOTIONS

15

BEFORE THE HONORABLE MARGARET B. SEYMOUR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, and a jury.

16
17
Appearances:
18
19

For the Plaintiff:

JEFFREY S. PATTERSON, ESQ.
JOHN C. MCELWAINE, ESQ.
151 Meeting Street, Sixth Floor
Charleston, SC 29401

For Defendant Prince:

CHRISTOPHER D. LIZZI, ESQ.
36 Broad Street
Charleston, SC 29401

For Defendant Bright
Builders:

PAUL J. DOOLITTLE, ESQ.
DOUGLAS M. FRASER, ESQ.
P.O. Box 2579
Charleston, SC 29401

20
21
22
23
24
25

Gary N. Smith, CM
Columbia, SC

49
1

And number 12 now is removed?

2

THE COURT:

I think -- is that the claim that was

3

withdrawn?

4

is that still an issue?

5

Unfair competition and false designation of origin,

MR. PATTERSON:

You had actually asked us if we

6

withdrew our unfair competition claim under the South Carolina

7

common law, which I said yes.

8

competition under federal law, the Lanham Act, which I think

9

it's -- you know, the counterfeiting conduct we talked about is

10

unfair competition, but we didn't actually withdraw that claim.

11
12

THE COURT:

This actually is unfair

So, are there separate damages for this

or is there a separate verdict on this particular issue --

13

MR. PATTERSON:

14

THE COURT:

15

MR. PATTERSON:

No --

-- or is it part of the Lanham Act claim?
The way you have done the verdict

16

form or the way we did it, it would include it, because it

17

says, "trademark counterfeiting and infringement in violation

18

of the Lanham Act."

19

violation of the Lanham Act.

This would just be another type of

20

THE COURT:

So do we need instruction number 12?

21

MR. PATTERSON:

22

THE COURT:

23

MR. DOOLITTLE:

No.

Okay.

So we are going to delete that?

Yes, that would be agreeable with

24

Bright Builders, and we have no objections to the remaining

25

jury instructions.
Gary N. Smith, CM
Columbia, SC