LVL XIII Brands, Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier SA et al.

Brief In Opposition to LVL XIII's Motion to Strike Damning Material in LVL XIII's Summary Judgment Submissions

Ronald Coleman

From the Preliminary Statement:

"Attempting illegitimately to supplement their summary judgment briefing, defendants Louis Vuitton Malletier SA and Louis Vuitton North America, Inc. (collectively, “Louis Vuitton” or “defendants”) have submitted a so-called “motion to strike certain of LVL XIII’s submissions relating to parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.” This essentially amounts to a unilateral grant by defendants to themselves of 18 pages of argumentation attacking plaintiff’s summary judgment submissions under the guise of a “motion to strike” – a procedural device not provided for under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure except in connection with pleadings, and even then utilized only sparingly.

"Defendants have also awarded themselves this extra round of motion practice for another attempt, this time from another angle, to attack the testimony of Erik Pelton, plaintiff’s trademark prosecution counsel. Mr. Pelton was highly effective at countering misguided questioning by Louis Vuitton concerning both his practice and PTO procedure as it applied to the facts of this case at his deposition, and demonstrated the extent of defendants’ continuing misapprehension of his answers in the declaration he submitted in the summary judgment briefing. Defendants now double down and insist that if Mr. Pelton is so certain that he knew what he was doing, and why, when he prosecuted LVL XIII’s trademark applications, he must be “an expert witness” and his testimony should therefore be stricken.

"This is a non-sequitur, as demonstrated below. Mr. Pelton merely testified, and continues to do so, based on his factual recollection and comprehension of the trademark prosecution work he performed for plaintiff. That this factual circumstance implicated deep expertise does not make him an expert witness because LVL XIII does not offer him as one. The mere fact that Louis Vuitton does not like what Mr. Pelton has to say – because it is correct – is a testament to his expertise, but it does not change his status as a fact witness, or make defendants’ motion meritorious."

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Reference Info: Legal Memoranda: Motions for Summary Judgment/Adjudication | Federal, 2nd Circuit, New York | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ronald Coleman, Dhillon Law Group, Inc | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Ronald Coleman

Dhillon Law Group, Inc on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.