Reflex Media, Inc. v. SuccessfulMatch.com
- James Donato
- 3:20-cv-06393
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Reflex Media v. SuccessfulMatch.com, Judge Donato set trial procedures, denied exclusion of an expert, and ruled on motions in limine.
Reflex Media, Inc., SuccessfulMatch.com, the other parties identified in the caption, their counsel and witnesses, and the prospective jurors were affected by the trial procedures and evidentiary rulings.
What happened
In Reflex Media, Inc. v. SuccessfulMatch.com, a jury trial was scheduled to begin August 19, 2025. The court set trial hours, time limits, jury-selection procedures, and requirements for presenting witnesses and evidence.
The court denied defendants’ request to exclude plaintiffs’ putative expert Jonathan Hochman. It granted in principle plaintiffs’ first motion in limine, deferred plaintiffs’ second through eighth motions until trial, granted defendants’ first motion in limine, and deferred defendants’ second motion until trial.
Judge James Donato also ordered the parties to submit joint proposed jury instructions and a revised verdict form. This pretrial order set procedures and evidentiary rulings; it did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Reflex Media, Inc. v. SuccessfulMatch.com · No. 3:20-cv-06393
- James Donato
- Aug. 8, 2025
Background
The court issued a pretrial order for a jury trial set to begin Tuesday, August 19, 2025. The order established procedures for the trial, including trial days and hours, time limits for each side, jury selection, jury notebooks, juror questions, objections, witness availability, witness presentation, expert testimony, and advance disclosure of witnesses and exhibits.
Each side received seven hours for all witness examinations, plus 30 minutes for opening statements and 30 minutes for closing arguments. The court stated that eight jurors would be seated and that each side would have three peremptory challenges, in addition to challenges for cause.
Expert-evidence ruling
Defendants asked the court to exclude the opinions of plaintiffs’ putative expert Jonathan Hochman under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and related cases. The court denied that request. It stated that defendants had not shown or explained how Hochman’s opinions were unreliable enough to constitute “junk science.” The court also stated that challenges to the truthfulness of documents supporting Hochman’s opinions concerned the weight of the evidence rather than whether the opinions could be admitted. The court left open objections to particular opinions or testimony at trial as circumstances warranted.
Motions in limine
A motion in limine is a request to decide before trial whether particular evidence or arguments may be presented to the jury. The court summarized these dispositions:
- Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 1 was granted in principle. The court stated that the Lanham Act’s legal definition of a generic name or term is established and that evidence or argument suggesting otherwise would be irrelevant, misleading, or likely to confuse the jury. The court would address objections during trial based on how the evidence or argument was presented. - Plaintiffs’ Motions in Limine Nos. 2 through 8 had their resolution deferred to trial. Defendants could offer the evidence at trial if they provided an adequate foundation, and the court would address objections then. - Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 was granted. Neither party could introduce evidence of or refer to litigation involving plaintiffs’ asserted marks in the Reflex Media, Inc. et al. v. Luxy Limited matter or other judicial proceedings involving those marks. - Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 had its resolution deferred to trial.
Additional trial requirements and disposition
The parties were directed to file joint proposed preliminary and final jury instructions and a joint revised verdict form by noon California time on August 12, 2025. The court instructed the parties to follow specified exemplar instructions and verdict forms, adapted to the facts of this case.
Judge James Donato entered the order on August 8, 2025. The order governed the upcoming trial and resolved or deferred specified evidentiary matters; the opinion text does not state a final judgment on the underlying claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.