Moonbug Entertainment Limited v. Babybus Network Technology Co., Ltd
- Edward Chen
- 3:21-cv-06536
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Moonbug v. Babybus, Judge Chen ruled on trial evidence, sustaining, overruling, and reserving judgment on objections.
Moonbug Entertainment Limited and the other plaintiffs, Babybus (Fujian) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and the other defendants, and the presentation of their evidence at trial.
What happened
In Moonbug Entertainment Limited v. Babybus (Fujian) Network Technology Co., Ltd., the court reviewed the parties’ objections to witness disclosures, cross-disclosures, and deposition designations for trial.
The court overruled some objections, sustained others, and reserved judgment on several exhibits pending more information. Some acquisition and collaboration documents could be used for limited purposes related to damages and whether Babybus acted willfully, but not to argue that Babybus rejected Moonbug as a business partner.
Judge Edward M. Chen ordered that the parties follow these evidence rulings, including providing more relevance and context for one deposition designation and clarifying the subject of a proposed collaboration before the court rules on certain exhibits.
The detailed version
- Moonbug Entertainment Limited v. Babybus Network Technology Co., Ltd · No. 3:21-cv-06536
- Edward Chen
- July 17, 2023
Background
The court reviewed the defendants’ disclosures, the plaintiffs’ disclosures, and the parties’ objections concerning witness disclosures, cross-disclosures, and deposition designations for a July 18, 2023 trial. The order addressed whether particular documents and testimony could be used as trial evidence; it did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.
Rulings on Plaintiffs’ Objections
The court overruled the plaintiffs’ objections under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403 to several documents involving communications between Yunshan Lin and Moonbug about arranging a meeting and acquisition overtures, including Trial Exhibits 2365, 2367, 2368, 2372, 2373, and 2374. The court relied on its earlier ruling concerning similar exhibits. It stated, however, that the documents were admissible only to the extent they shed light on Moonbug’s alleged failure to mitigate damages and Babybus’ alleged lack of willfulness. They were not admissible to support an argument that Moonbug brought the lawsuit because Babybus rejected its acquisition overtures or that Moonbug was a “scorned partner.”
The court reserved judgment on Trial Exhibits 2369, 2360, 2361, 2362, 2366, 2370, and 2371, pending clarification about whether the proposed collaboration involved the allegedly infringed or infringing music rights at issue in the lawsuit.
The court sustained the plaintiffs’ objections to Trial Exhibit 3388, a PDF summarizing WeChat messages, because the presentation raised concerns under Rules 802, 1006, and 403. The court also sustained the objections to Trial Exhibit 3461, a spreadsheet summary of WeChat messages, and to Trial Exhibit 2420-2631, the WeChat messages between Helen Wong and Yunshan Lin, referring to the same ruling. The court overruled the plaintiffs’ Rule 802 objection to Trial Exhibit 843, an August 27, 2021 email from YouTube to Super JoJo English concerning Digital Millennium Copyright Act notifications.
Rulings on Defendants’ Objections
The court reserved judgment on the defendants’ objections under Rules 402 and 403 to deposition-designation Exhibit 933, a November 30, 2020 text message between Xunjie Zhang and Yunshan Lin. The message discussed changing an episode title and using “Cocomelon” as a reference. The defendants argued that short titles are not copyrightable and that discussing titles was not relevant. The court directed Moonbug to show the exhibit’s relevance and provide context.
Disposition and Effect
The court entered the stated evidentiary rulings: some objections were overruled, some were sustained, and judgment was reserved on the specified exhibits and deposition designation. The order concerns what evidence may be presented and for what purposes at trial; it does not state a final ruling on liability, infringement, damages, or any other underlying claim. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order on July 17, 2023.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.