Reinsdorf v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.
296 F.R.D. 604
| C.D. Cal. | 2013Background
- Reinsdorf seeks to reopen merits discovery and obtain sanctions for alleged Skechers discovery misconduct; the court denies reopening and sanctions.
- The case concerns alleged copyright infringement in Skechers’ use of Reinsdorf’s photographs and Skechers’ discovery conduct related to financial and marketing data.
- A Scheduling Order set discovery cutoff in 2012 and dispositive motions deadlines, later extended; Skechers’ motions and rulings followed, including exclusion of certain expert testimony.
- Reinsdorf challenged Skechers’ production of financial data (general ledger vs. subledgers) and claimed missing or withheld documents from the Media Share Website, including a 2010 Marketing Binder; Skechers argued data production was complete and reasonable.
- The magistrate judge held a hearing, reviewed briefing and declarations, and concluded Skechers’ responses were reasonable and discovery should remain closed; no spoliation occurred and no re-opening or sanctions are warranted.
- The court acknowledged ongoing disputes over marketing data and the role of Rule 26 disclosures, but ultimately found no basis to reinstate discovery or impose sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery should be reopened for alleged misconduct | Reinsdorf argues Skechers withheld/destroyed evidence and spoliated Media Share materials | Skechers contends no misconduct; production was adequate and searches were reasonable | No reopening or sanctions; discovery remains closed |
| Whether Skechers’ general ledger production sufficed and whether subledgers were required | Differentiated product-line data was required under discovery and Rule 26 | Aggregate general ledger data were sufficient; subledgers not required under the requests | Aggregate data sufficed; subledgers not required by the requests; no violation of Rule 26 |
| Whether Rule 26 obligates automatic disclosure of product-line data due to Fifteenth Defense | Rule 26(a) requires disclosure of documents to support defenses, including product-line data | No obligation to disclose data not intended to be used at trial; Fifteenth Defense not a true affirmative defense | No automatic disclosure of product-line data; Rule 26 did not obligate production absent intent to use data at trial |
| Whether Skechers’ representation about marketing plans/documents was truthful | Skechers misrepresented lack of marketing plans and tracking of advertising effectiveness | No formal marketing plan; produced marketing usage documents; marketing plans not applicable | No reversible misrepresentation; no basis to reopen discovery on marketing plans |
| Whether deleted Media Share documents constitute spoliation and warrant sanctions | Deletion of 89 folders/1 file removed evidence and metadata relevant to infringement | Most deleted items were irrelevant; deletion was negligent at most; no prejudice shown; no sanctions warranted | No spoliation sanction; no reopening of discovery; deletions not prejudicial to the case |
Key Cases Cited
- Zubulake IV, 220 F.R.D. 216 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (strong duty to preserve; culpable state of mind required for sanctions; relevance and prejudice for spoliation)
- Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin’l Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002) (two-pronged relevance and prejudice in spoliation cases; sanction options vary by fault and prejudice)
- Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Apple I), 881 F.Supp.2d 976 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (discretion in spoliation; range of sanctions depending on fault and prejudice)
- In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation, 462 F.Supp.2d 1060 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (sanctions can be imposed for spoliation even without bad faith; negligent destruction may suffice with relevance/prejudice)
- Pension Comm. of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, 685 F.Supp.2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (negligence alone may support sanctions where prejudice shown; perfection not required)