Hawks Hill Ranch, LLC v. Yarak
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:22-cv-01567
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Hawks Hill Ranch v. Yarak, Judge Ryu partly granted and partly denied a motion to strike expert reports in a trademark dispute.
The ruling affected Hawks Hill Ranch, LLC, Hawks Hill Ranch Winery LLC, and William and Margaret Yarak by determining which of the Yaraks’ expert reports could be used in the case.
What happened
Hawks Hill Ranch, LLC and Hawks Hill Ranch Winery LLC asked the court to strike expert reports submitted by William and Margaret Yarak in a dispute over the trademarks “HH Hawks Hill Ranch,” “Hawks Hill Ranch,” and “Hawk Hill Vineyard.”
The motion challenged three reports served on February 21, 2024, as late. Hawks Hill also challenged two of Paul Reidl’s reports as containing improper legal opinions, but the order did not address that argument.
Judge Donna M. Ryu granted in part and denied in part the motion. The court allowed Frost’s supplemental report and Reidl’s supplemental report, but struck Reidl’s late rebuttal report because the Yaraks did not show that the delay was justified or harmless.
The detailed version
- Hawks Hill Ranch, LLC v. Yarak · No. 3:22-cv-01567
- Maxine Chesney
- Apr. 2, 2024
Background
Hawks Hill Ranch, LLC and Hawks Hill Ranch Winery LLC, collectively called Hawks Hill, seek a declaration that their use of the stylized “HH Hawks Hill Ranch” and “Hawks Hill Ranch” trademarks does not infringe William and Margaret Yarak’s “Hawk Hill Vineyard” trademark. The Yaraks counterclaimed for trademark infringement against Hawks Hill and Peter Kuyper.
The court had ordered the parties to serve initial expert reports by December 15, 2023, and rebuttal reports by December 29, 2023. On February 21, 2024, the Yaraks served three reports described as supplemental: Frost’s amended rebuttal report, Paul Reidl’s supplement to his initial report, and Reidl’s rebuttal report responding to Hawks Hill expert Rhonda Harper. Hawks Hill moved to strike all three as late and also asked the court to strike two Reidl reports for allegedly containing improper legal opinions. The order did not address the legal-opinion argument.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 requires expert disclosures to follow the court’s schedule. It also permits timely supplementation or correction when an expert report is materially incomplete or incorrect. Rule 26(e) does not allow a party to use supplementation to continue developing expert testimony after the deadline. Under Rule 37(c)(1), a party that fails to comply generally cannot use the undisclosed information, unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless. The party facing that sanction bears the burden of showing justification or harmlessness.
Court’s rulings
Frost’s supplemental report. The court denied the motion to strike Frost’s February 21, 2024 supplemental report. After reviewing a redline comparison, the court found that the report corrected typographical errors and clarified or emphasized points already made in Frost’s rebuttal report. The court concluded that the changes did not alter Frost’s prior opinions or add new ones.
Reidl’s supplemental report. The court denied the motion to strike Reidl’s supplement to his initial report. The court found that the report updated or corrected the earlier report with facts Reidl learned after serving it. Because the supplement was served before the May 13, 2024 deadline for pretrial disclosures, the court held that it satisfied Rule 26(e)’s timing requirements.
Reidl’s rebuttal report. The court granted the motion to strike Reidl’s February 21, 2024 rebuttal report as untimely. The report was served nearly two months after the December 29, 2023 rebuttal deadline. The court rejected the Yaraks’ argument that Reidl needed additional time to review a witness’s deposition, reasoning that a timely rebuttal report could have been followed by a supplement. The court also rejected the argument that the disclosure was harmless: listing Reidl as a possible rebuttal expert without providing his written report did not satisfy the disclosure rule, and the late report was served nine days before the dispositive-motion deadline. The court noted that Hawks Hill’s summary-judgment motion relied in part on Harper’s report, which Reidl’s late report sought to rebut.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part Hawks Hill’s motion to strike. It denied the request to strike Frost’s supplemental report and Reidl’s supplemental report, and granted the request to strike Reidl’s late rebuttal report.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.