Moonbug Entertainment Limited v. Babybus Network Technology Co., Ltd

Background

The court reviewed the parties’ witness disclosures, cross-disclosures, deposition designations, counter-designations, and objections in preparation for trial. The order concerns the use of witnesses, exhibits, demonstratives, and deposition testimony; it does not decide the parties’ underlying claims.

Court’s Rulings

- Defendants objected to approximately 400 exhibits identified by plaintiffs. The court overruled those objections, provided that the necessary foundation and authentication are established at trial. The court reserved judgment on translation issues and stated that it would follow the previously discussed trial protocol. - For two demonstratives involving witness Naiyong Yan, the court reserved judgment on plaintiffs’ objections. The ruling would depend on whether the underlying materials were already in evidence or were produced in discovery. One demonstrative concerned the BabyBus “Colors” application; the other was a montage of clips from publicly accessible YouTube videos. - The court overruled plaintiffs’ objections to numerous defendants’ deposition counter-designations involving Shaojie He, Jianing Gao, Xianyin Lin, Jiachun Xue, and Lei Sun. It also overruled defendants’ objections to many of the listed deposition designations. Some objections were described as already overruled in an earlier docket entry, and some defendants’ objections were overruled because they were not clearly stated.

Reasoning on Deposition Testimony

The court applied the rule of completeness. That rule allows an opposing party to introduce additional portions of a writing, recording, or deposition when necessary to avoid misunderstanding or distortion from presenting only part of the material. The court explained that defendants could not avoid this requirement by labeling their counter-designations as affirmative designations.

The court also relied on the trial judge’s authority to control questioning and testimony. It found that some counter-designations completed an answer that had been cut off or supplied context for terms such as “fake cut” and “Coco.” The court reasoned that, if the witnesses had testified live about the designated matters, defendants could have elicited clarifying testimony during cross-examination. The court likewise stated that the witnesses were not unavailable, which affected the rules governing use of deposition testimony.

Instructions for Future Filings

For future deposition-designation and counter-designation filings, the parties must quote the actual language of the designations and cross-designations along with their citations. For future exhibit disclosures and cross-disclosures, the parties must provide a brief description of each exhibit with its exhibit number and group common exhibits when an objection applies to an entire group.

Judge Edward M. Chen entered the order.