Easy Spirit, LLC v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.

Background

The parties submitted a joint letter concerning a discovery dispute. Skechers sought documents that Easy Spirit had produced in a related case in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, along with similar documents that Easy Spirit had withheld. Skechers also sought three-hour depositions of Easy Spirit witnesses Marc Fisher and Mark DeZao.

Skechers argued that the documents and testimony could show an industry practice of sending competitors’ shoes to China for examination and copying. It contended that the information was relevant to the claims and defenses in the present trademark and trade-dress case, including its defense based on unfair conduct by the opposing party. Skechers also argued that Mr. DeZao had relevant information that was not explored during his earlier deposition and that Mr. Fisher had firsthand knowledge because, according to Skechers, he had directed the examination of a Skechers shoe.

Easy Spirit opposed the request. It argued that the California documents concerned different products and had no reasonable connection to the claims in this case. Easy Spirit also argued that examining and comparing another company’s product did not establish misconduct and, in any event, could not support an unfair-conduct defense because the activity did not concern Easy Spirit’s acquisition or use of its trademark. It further argued that Skechers had waited too long to request the additional discovery.

Ruling

Judge William H. Pauley III granted the application. The Court stated that it would hold a teleconference concerning the parties’ discovery dispute on April 10, 2020, at 11:00 a.m., and provided a telephone number and access code.

The opinion text does not state that the Court ordered Easy Spirit to produce the requested documents or make the witnesses available for depositions. It also does not resolve the parties’ arguments about relevance, the unfair-conduct defense, or timeliness.