Telebrands Corp. v. Shenzhen Yitai Technology Co., Ltd.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-00904
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Telebrands Corp. v. Shenzhen Yitai Technology Co., Ltd., Judge Cott ordered Telebrands to provide admissible evidence supporting its requested damages.
Telebrands Corp. must provide sworn or otherwise admissible evidence supporting its requested damages; the order concerns damages after Shenzhen Yitai Technology Co., Ltd.'s default.
What happened
Telebrands Corp. v. Shenzhen Yitai Technology Co., Ltd. concerns the amount of money Telebrands sought after Shenzhen Yitai Technology Co., Ltd. defaulted. The case was referred for a review of the damages request.
Telebrands relied on a workbook stating that Shenzhen Yitai sold 4,412 infringing products for total sales of $114,221.29. The court said those figures could not support a damages award without sworn testimony from someone with personal knowledge confirming that the workbook was accurate.
Judge James L. Cott ordered Telebrands to submit supporting documentation by November 23, 2022. The order did not decide the amount of damages.
The detailed version
- Telebrands Corp. v. Shenzhen Yitai Technology Co., Ltd. · No. 1:22-cv-00904
- Lorna Schofield
- Nov. 16, 2022
Background
Shenzhen Yitai Technology Co., Ltd. defaulted in the case. Judge Schofield referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge James L. Cott to conduct an inquest—an examination of the evidence supporting the damages request—and issue a report and recommendation about the amount of damages Telebrands Corp. should receive.
Evidence and requested damages
Telebrands submitted a workbook attached to the affidavit of Kerry B. Brownlee. The workbook indicated that Shenzhen Yitai sold 4,412 units of the infringing products, with total sales of $114,221.29. The order states that Telebrands had not submitted a declaration or sworn affidavit from someone with personal knowledge of the workbook's accuracy.
Ruling
Judge Cott ordered Telebrands to supplement its inquest submissions with admissible evidence supporting the claimed $114,221.29 in sales. The court explained that, without sworn testimony from a person with personal knowledge, the workbook figures were hearsay and could not be relied on to calculate damages. Telebrands was required to submit sufficient supplemental documentation by November 23, 2022. The order did not determine the final damages amount.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.