Eko Brands v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises Inc et al

Filing 102

MINUTE ORDER pursuant to parties' 85 Stipulation, dismissing with prejudice and without costs plaintiff's claim for violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, as well as defendants' counterclaim for declaratory judgment tha t they have not violated the CPA; granting in part and denying in part parties' 90 Stipulated Motion to Seal Unredacted Version of the Proposed Pretrial Order (Dkt. 92 shall remain under seal); striking in part, granting in part, denying in part, and deferring in part plaintiff's 82 MOTIONS IN LIMINE; granting in part, denying in part, and deferring in part defendants' 80 MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Authorized by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

4
5
6

EKO BRANDS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

7
v.

C17-894 TSZ

8
9

ADRIAN RIVERA MAYNEZ
ENTERPRISES, INC.; and
ADRIAN RIVERA,

MINUTE ORDER

10
Defendants.
11
12

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable
Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:

13

(1)
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, docket no. 85, plaintiff’s claim for
violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), as well as defendants’
14 counterclaim for declaratory judgment that they have not violated the CPA, are each
DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
15
(2)
The parties’ stipulated motion, docket no. 90, to seal the unredacted version
16 of the proposed Pretrial Order, docket no. 92, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part,
as follows. The unredacted version of the proposed Pretrial Order, docket no. 92, shall
17 remain under seal, but the portions of such document that the parties view as confidential
are admitted facts that will be included in the jury instructions, which will be read in open
18 court and filed for public view in the docket.
19
20

(3)
Plaintiff’s motion in limine, docket no. 82, is STRICKEN in part,
GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and DEFERRED in part, as follows:
(A)

Plaintiff’s motion to exclude certain witnesses is STRICKEN as
moot;

(B)

Plaintiff’s motion to preclude defendants from asserting certain
affirmative defenses is STRICKEN in part as moot with regard to

21
22
23
MINUTE ORDER - 1

1

the defenses of “fair use” and “unclean hands,” which defendants
are no longer pursuing, GRANTED in part with regard to the
defenses of “estoppel” and “waiver,” which were not pleaded in
defendants’ Answer, docket no. 25, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(1),
GRANTED in part as to plaintiff’s motion to exclude evidence of
“claim splitting” and “double recovery,” which are issues of law to
be resolved by the Court, see Aero Prods. Int’l, Inc. v. Intex
Recreation Corp., 466 F.3d 1000, 1016-20 (Fed. Cir. 2006), and
DEFERRED in part to the Pretrial Conference with regard to the
defense of “laches”; at the Pretrial Conference, the Court will
address the procedures for resolving all issues relating to claim
splitting and double recovery; and

2
3
4
5
6
7
(C)
8
9
10
11
12

Plaintiff’s motion to exclude certain exhibits is DENIED in part as to
exhibits, if any, that (i) were not requested in discovery, (ii) did not
exist more than thirty (30) days before they were disclosed to
plaintiff by defendants, or (iii) are otherwise available to the public;
except as denied, plaintiff’s motion to exclude certain exhibits is
DEFERRED to the Pretrial Conference.

(4)
Defendants’ motion in limine, docket no. 80, is GRANTED in part, DENIED
in part, and DEFERRED in part, as follows:
(A)

Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence regarding the parties’ prior
or other pending litigation, including Case No. C15-522 JPD in this
district, Case No. C16-4676-JAK-SS in the Central District of
California, Case No. 17-2421 in the Federal Circuit, and proceedings
before the Patent and Trademark Office, is DEFERRED to the
Pretrial Conference;

(B)

Defendants’ motion to exclude an e-mail from Rabbi Zev Schwartz
dated December 13, 2017, is DENIED;

(C)

Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence of settlement negotiations
or licenses offered by plaintiff before trial is GRANTED;

(D)

Defendants’ motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiff’s expert
Catherine Carr was previously GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part, as indicated in Paragraph 2 of the Minute Order entered
November 8, 2018, docket no. 66; any further objection to the scope
of Carr’s testimony is DEFERRED to the Pretrial Conference; and

(E)

Defendants’ motion to sequester witnesses is GRANTED, except
that the issue of who may be present during trial as a party
representative is DEFERRED to the Pretrial Conference.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MINUTE ORDER - 2

1

(5)
record.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of

2
Dated this 6th day of September, 2019.
3
William M. McCool
Clerk

4
5

s/Karen Dews
Deputy Clerk

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MINUTE ORDER - 3